N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) THIS Criminal Petition, one under section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 (the 'code') is for granting anticipatory bail in favour of the petitioners. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case as disclosed from the petition are these : since the year 1984 there has been civil litigation between one Sampangirama- iah of Salahunise village on the one hand and the 1st and the 4th petitioner on the other. The 1st petitioner and the 4th petitioner have so far come out successful in all the civil litigations against Sampangiramaiah. However, one such litigation between the parties is now pending before this court and one other suit is pending on the file of the additional Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural district. All the cases are being hotly contested by the parties. The 4th petitioner who had the benefit of an order passed by the competent Civil Court with regard to the user and enjoyment of the wet land wherein he has raised sugarcane crop which has become ripe for being harvested. Sampangiramaiah has commenced litigation in respect of the sugarcane crop raised by the 4th petitioner. By virtue of an order passed by this court, both the parties have been prevented from harvesting the standing sugarcane crop though it had become ripe for being harvested more than five months ago. ( 3 ) WHILE the civil litigation between the parties stood thus, Sampangiramaiah gave a complaint before Harohalli Police on 20-10-1985 against the petitioners and two others alleging that there has been civil disputes between himself and the petitioners, that on 20-10-1985 at about 9 a. m. he had gone to neighbouring village to attend the obsequies of his relation, that he returned to the village at about 3 p. m. when he was informed by his daughter that his wife sarasamma who had gone to their land in the morning had not returned, that on hearing this, he and his brother Hanumaiah went in search of Sarasamma to their land where they found Sarasamma lying dead with bleeding injuries, that the ornaments worn by her were found missing and it was these petitioners and two others who committed the murder of sarasamma and carried the ornaments she was wearing. The police, on the basis of the complaint filed by Sampangiramaiah registered a case in Cr. The police, on the basis of the complaint filed by Sampangiramaiah registered a case in Cr. No. 106/1985 of harohalli Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 395 i. P. C. against the petitioners and two others and submitted the F. I. R. . to the court fo the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, bangalore District. The averments made in the complaint show that none had seen the deceased being assaulted by the assailants, let alone by the petitioners. The case against the petitioners and two others came to be registered on mere suspicion. The complainant Sampangiramaiah had involved the petitioners and the other accused falsely in the crime with a view to wreak vengeance against them and also preventing petitioners 1 and 4 from defending the civil suits between them and Sampangiramaiah now pending before the Civil Courts. The material collected in the course of investigation on the date of filing the revision would not reveal that the petitioners are guilty of an offence punishable either with death or imprisonment for life. Sampangiramaiah in active collusion with some other people of the village has already put the investigating agency on a wrong track to see that the petitioners are arrested by the police. Being misled by the complainant and his close associates, the Police have been shadowing the petitioners to arrest them in the case registered on the complaint of sampangiramaiah. Besides, Sampangiramaiah has been openly proclaiming that he has managed the things in such a way with the investigating agency that the petitioners would be arrested ; hand-cuffed and detained in the lock-up of Harohalli Police station and then they would be paraded in the village and produced in the court. The petitioners apprehend that they would be put to humiliation and rediculein the eyes of the public. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this petition straight away in this court without approaching the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail to them. ( 4 ) THE State has filed objections strongly opposing the petition. The grounds adduced in the statement of objections are these : the petitioners are the accused in cr. Under these circumstances, the petitioners have filed this petition straight away in this court without approaching the Sessions Court for granting anticipatory bail to them. ( 4 ) THE State has filed objections strongly opposing the petition. The grounds adduced in the statement of objections are these : the petitioners are the accused in cr. No. 106/1985 registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Sampangirama- iah for the offences punishable under section 302 and 395 I. P. C. for havmg committed the murder of Sarasamma, the wife of the complainant and carried away the ornaments worn by her. Soon after the crime was registered, the C. P. I. of kanakapura, having taken up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence at about 9-45 p. m. on the same day. As it was night, he could not continue the investigation immediately. On the next day morning, during the inquest, he recorded the statement of the complainant and three eye-witnesses by name rudraiah, his wife Ratnamma and one narasimhaiah. Their statements show that petitioners-1, 2 and 5 were found in the land of the deceased and they were seen standing in a bend position and doing something in that position while the other three accused, Arjun, Mahadev and the 3rd petitioner were moving around the place in a suspicious manner and when they asked the 5th petitioner as to what they were doing and told him that they wanted to see the place, the 5th petitioner showed them a sickle and asked them to go away. Immediately after the inquest the C. P. I. got the dog- squad for the purpose of investigation. A sickle with blood-stains was recovered from the house of the 1st petitioner with the help of the dog-squad. The other two accused Arjun and Mahadev were arrested on 28-10-1985 and they are remanded to judicial custody. There was strong motive for the accused to commit the offence. Petitioners 1 to 3 and 5 and the other two accused, all belong to the party of the 4th petitioner bhadraiah. Bhadraiah had sold his land to the complainant Sampangiramaiah and received large sums of money from him and still claims to be in possession of the land sold and obtained court orders to harvest the sugarcane crop raised on the land. Sampangiramaiah has been fighting in the civil courts to establish his right over the said land. Bhadraiah had sold his land to the complainant Sampangiramaiah and received large sums of money from him and still claims to be in possession of the land sold and obtained court orders to harvest the sugarcane crop raised on the land. Sampangiramaiah has been fighting in the civil courts to establish his right over the said land. The 4th petitioner was waiting for an opportunity to put an end to the life of the complainant and his family members. The other petitioners are his staunch followers and supporters. The blood-stained sickle has been recovered from the house of the 1st petitioner. The ornaments found missing from the person of the deceased are yet to be recovered from the other petitioners. There are three eye-witnesses to the incident and their statements have been recorded during the investigation. The medical opinion goes to show that the deceased has died of a homicidal death. The investigation is under progress and has not yet been completed. If the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, not only they hamper the course of investigation but it may not be possible to recover the regaining articles involved in the case. There is every likelihood of their tampering with the witnesses as they are very influential persons in the village. Besides they are likely to abscond. On these grounds, the State contended that the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail. ( 5 ) THE short point that arise for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for anticipatory bail. ( 6 ) SECTION 438 of the Code is a new provision brought on the statute in the code OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, 1973. The reason for enacting the provision has been stated by the Law Commission in its recommendation reads :"though there is a conflict of judicial opinion about the power of a Court to grant anticipatory bail, the majority view is that there is no such power under the existing provisions of the code. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. The necessity for granting anticipatory bail arises mainly because sometimes influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them or for other purposes by getting them detained in jail for some days. In recent times, with the accentuation of political rivalry, this tendency is showing signs of steady increase. Apart from false cases, where there are reasonable grounds for holding that a person accused of an offence is not likely to abscond or otherwise misuse his liberty while on bail, there seems no justification to require him first submit to custody, remain in prison for some days and then apply for bail. " ( 7 ) WHAT are the consideration that should weigh normally in granting the relief under Section 438 of the Code has engaged the attention of the supreme court in a number of decisions. The more recent pronouncement on this subject is pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan (A. I. R. 1985 S. C. 969 ). The facts of that case were : an incident occurred on 23rd august 1983 in which one Bhawaria, son of the appellant received fatal injuries resulting in his death. An information was lodged with the police about the occurence on 24-8-1983 around 11-30 a. m. At that time Bhawaria was alive and the offence was registered under section 397, and 407 read with Section 149 and Sections 148, 379 and 327 I. P. C. When the hospital authority sent the message that Bhawaria, the victim of assault who was admitted in the hospital for treatment, has succumbed to his injuries, the investigating officer also added an offence under Section 302 I. P. C. Soon thereafter on 29th September 1983, the 2nd respondent Shandan Singh appeared before the learned Sessions Judge, Jodhpur and moved an application under Section 438 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 for granting him an anticipatory bail. The public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the application. The learned judge by his order dated 30th September 1983 accepted the application and granted anticipatory bail to the 2nd respondent and ordered that if the accused was taken into custody by the police, he must be released on bail on his furnishing security in the amount of Rs. 5000/- on condition that he will assist in investigation and will not interfere in the investigation and will not go out of India. 5000/- on condition that he will assist in investigation and will not interfere in the investigation and will not go out of India. The appellant moved the High Court of rajasthan questioning the correctness of the order and for cancellation of the anticipatory bail. The learned Single judge of the High Court rejected the application. Thus the matter had reached the Supreme Court in appeal by Special leave. The Supreme Court noticing the infirmity in the reasoning of the High court in refusing to cancel the anticipatory bail by mixing up the relevant considerations is granting anticipatory bail and granting bail to a person who is arrested in the course of the investigation and to a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and holding that the relevant considerations in deciding the question of granting bail in the three situations are substantially different from each other, observed :"the decision of the Constitution bench in Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia v state of Punjab (1980) 2 S. C. C. 565 ; (AIR 1980 S. C. 1632) clearly lays down that the distinction between an ordinary order of bail and an order of anticipatory bail is that whereas the former is granted after arrest and therefore means release from the custody of the police, the latter is granted in anticipation of arrest and therefore effective at the very moment of arrest. Unlike a post-arrest, order of bail, it is a pre-arrest legal process which directs that if the person in whose favour it is issued is thereafter arrested on the accusation in respect of which the direction is issued, he shall be released on bail. A direction under S. 438 is intended to confer conditional immunity from the touch as envisaged by S. 46 (1) of confinement. In para 31, Chandra- chud, C. J. clearly demarcated the distinction between the relevant considerations while examining an application for anticipatory bail and application for bail after arrest in the course of investigation. Says the learned Chief Justice that 'in regard to anticipatory bail, if the proposed accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive, the object being to injure and humiliate the applicant by having him arrested, a direction for the release of the applicant on bail in the event of his arrast would generally be made. It was observed that " it cannot be laid down as an inexorable "rule that anticipatory bail cannot be granted unless the proposed accusation appears to be actuated by mala fides ; and, equally, that anticipatory bail must be granted if there is no fear that the applicant will abscond. " Some of the relevant considerations which govern the discretion, noticed therein are the nature and seriousness of the proposed charges, the context of the events likely to lead to the making of the charges, a reasonable possibility of the applicant's presence not being secured at the trial, a reasonable apprehension that witnesses will be tampered with and "the larger interests of the public or the State" are some of the considerations which the court has to keep in mind while deciding an application for anticipatory bail. " A caution was voiced that ' in the evaluation of the consideration whether the applicant is likely to abscond, there can be no presumption that the wealthy and the mighty will submit themselves to trial and that the humble and the poor will run away from the course of justice, any more than there can be a presumption that the former are not likely to commit a crime and the latter are more likely to commit it. "having noticed the relevant considerations which should weigh with the court in the matter of granting or refusing to grant anticipatory bail as laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision, let me now consider the case on hand. ( 8 ) ON 30-10-1985, when the Criminal petition came up for orders, the Court granted time to the respondent-State to file its objections, If any, by 6-11-1985 and also directed in the meanwhile if the petitioners are arrested, they should be released on bail on their personal bond pending disposal of the petition. It is stated by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that all the five petitioners were arrested on 30-10-1985 and released on bail as directed by this Court. ( 9 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader has made available the records of investigation for perusal. Besides, the state has also filed their objections in which the details of the investigation so far held have been elaborately stated. ( 9 ) THE learned High Court Government Pleader has made available the records of investigation for perusal. Besides, the state has also filed their objections in which the details of the investigation so far held have been elaborately stated. The petitioners have also produced the certified copy of the F. I. R. submitted to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial magistrate, Bangalore District, Bangalore. ( 10 ) THERE is no indication in the first information (Complaint) lodged by Sampangiramaiah, the husband of the deceased sarasamma that the incident in question was witnessed by any witnesses. No doubt, he has mentioned in his complaint that these petitioners and two. others committed the murder of Sarasamma and removed the jewels from her person. The reason stated by him in his complaint for perpertration of such heinous crime by these petitioners and others was the ill-will between the complainant and some of the accused on account of civil litigations, some of which are still pending before different civil courts. He has also stated that as he wanted to enquire in the neighbourhood regarding the incident and also since the bus reached late, he could not lodge his complaint early before the police. The complaint was lodged at 7-30 p. m. on 20-10-1985 in the Harohalli Police station within the jurisdiction of kanakapura Circle and a case was registered on the basis of the said complaint in Cr. No. 106/1985. ( 11 ) IT is stated in the objection statement that the C. P. I. who took up the investigation, went to the place of occurrence at 9-45 p. m. on the same day. As it was night, he could not commence the investigation. The next day morning he held the inquest. During the inquest he recorded the statement of the complainant and three alleged eye witnesses. The statement of the alleged eye witnesses revealed that petitioners 1, 2 and 5 were found in the land of the deceased and they were seen in a bent position and were doing something whereas the 3rd petitioner and two others accused viz. , Arjuna and mahadeva were seen moving around the spot in a suspicious manner and when they (alleged eye witnesses) enquired with the 1st petitioner about the incident and also expressed their anxiety to see the spot, the 5th petitioner threatened them and asked them to go away showing a sickle. , Arjuna and mahadeva were seen moving around the spot in a suspicious manner and when they (alleged eye witnesses) enquired with the 1st petitioner about the incident and also expressed their anxiety to see the spot, the 5th petitioner threatened them and asked them to go away showing a sickle. It is further stated in the objection statement that immediately after the inquest, the I. O. got the dog-squad for the purpose of investigation and the dog squad which was taken to the place of occurence went inside the house of the 1st petitioner and brought a sickle which contained stains resembling blood. ( 12 ) THESE are the materials, collected against the petitioners so far. On these materials, the prosecution has pointed but several circumstances in their objection statement against granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners and among them, circumstances 1 to 4 are based on the material so far collected by the prosecution and circumstances 5 and 6 are the probable apprehension of the prosecution that the course of investigation will be. prejudiced and hampered if the petitioners are enlarged on anticipatory bail. ( 13 ) I do not propose to coment upon the material so far collected by the prosecution during the investigation as it would not be advisable at this stage to do so. However, incidentally certain aspects will have to be noticed as appear from the material now available. ( 14 ) AS noticed earlier, there is no indication in the complaint that the occurence in question was witnessed by any of the witnesses. Sampangiramiah on hearing from his daughter that his wife who had gone to the field at about 10 a. m did not return, till 3 p. m. went to the field at 3 p. m. along with his brother Hanumiah and found Sarasamma lying dead in the field with bleeding injuries with all her jewels being removed from her person. Harohalli Police Station is about 15 k. m. from the place of occurence. The complaint was lodged in the police station at 7-30 p. m. The Circle Inspector of police reached the spot at 9-45 p. m. Inquest was conducted on the next day morning. The three alleged eye-witnesses were questioned at the inquest. Harohalli Police Station is about 15 k. m. from the place of occurence. The complaint was lodged in the police station at 7-30 p. m. The Circle Inspector of police reached the spot at 9-45 p. m. Inquest was conducted on the next day morning. The three alleged eye-witnesses were questioned at the inquest. In the complaint, the ccmplainant has mentioned the name of the petitioners and two others as the accused who had perpetrated the crime alleged in the complaint. The alleged eye-witnesses have also attributed certain acts against these petitioners and the two other accused. Still the Investigating officer did not choose to search the house of any of the petitioners either for the purpose of recovering the weapons used in the commission of the offence or for the recovery of the jewels alleged to have been missing from the person of the deceased. The records show that soon after the inquest, the investigating officer requisitioned the services of the dog squad and with the help of the dog squad he is said to have recovered a 'kudugolu' from the house of the 1st petitioner suspected to have contained stains of blood. The motive alleged by the prosecution for perpetrating the crime by these petitioners was the civil disputes between Sampangiramiah on the one hand and some of the petitioners other. In this background it is nececssary to notice the other two circumstances urged by the prosecution against granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. They were : (1) the investigation is under progress and has not yet been completed and if the petitioners are released on anticipatory bail, they would hamper the investigation and it may not be possible to recover the articles found missing from the person of the deceased ; and (2) That the petitioners will abscond and being influential and rich persons, they would tamper the prosecution witnesses and put them under threat not to depose against them. ( 15 ) IN this context, it is necessary to notice that all the petitioners have had the advantage of an interim anticipatory bail in their favour since 30-10-1985 and since then they had been arrested and released on bail as per the direction of this Court. There is no allegation by the prosecution that the petitioners have in any way acted in a manner prejudicial to the course of investigation. There is no allegation by the prosecution that the petitioners have in any way acted in a manner prejudicial to the course of investigation. ( 16 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and also the material so far collected, by the prosecution, I could see no serious objection for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners. ( 17 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. Each of the petitioner is directed to furnish a fresh bond in a sum of Rs. 5000/- with one surety for like sum. The interim anticipatory bail granted in their favour shall continue subject to the condition that they shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required and that they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer. ( 18 ) THE petitioners are directed to appear before the investigating officer in Cr. No. 106/1985 of Harohalli Police station on or before 22-11-1985 and execute the bail bonds as directed. ( 19 ) FURNISH the operative portion of this order to the petitioner's counsel forthwith. --- *** --- .