JUDGMENT G.D. Kamat, J. - The orders made by the Principal Judge, City Civil and Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on 12-9-1986 granting bail to the Respondents are challenged in two separate proceedings. In Criminal Application No. 1536 of 1986 the Orders are challenged by the State of Maharashtra, while Pupsi Bhimshi Cheddha challenges the same in Criminal Revision Application No. 360 of 1986 seeking cancellation of bail granted. 2. It may be at the outset mentioned that the impugned orders are not speaking orders though they reject the bail sought for by one Jethalal Cheddha, at the same time grant bail to Respondents Nos. 1 to 5. I have made reference to these orders as being non-speaking because that bas become the bone of contention in these two petitions besides the others. 3. To understand the controversy involved in the present petitions, it may be mentioned that the Officer In-charge of the Gamdevi Police Station is investigating into a case where admittedly a murder has taken place and three persons are seriously injured and that event took place on 21-8-1986 at Narendra Bhavan, Bhulabhai Desai Road, Bombay 400 026. The person who died is Chunilal Bhimshi Cheddba and the other persons seriously injured are Pupsi Bhimshi Cheddha, who is the Petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 360 of 1986, Bhimshi Cheddha and Meghji Kheraj. The investigation unfolds that Jethalal Mulji Cheddha, the father of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 (Respondents referred to herein are serially shown in Criminal Application No 1536 of 1986), owns a shop at garage No. 2 in the aforementioned Narendra Bhavan; that he was interested in the purchase of the adjoining garage No. 3. However, the said garage was purchased by M/s. Mahavir Corporation, a partnership firm, of which Pupsi Bhimshi Cheddha is a partner along with three others. 1his purchase was, however not liked to by aforementioned Jethalal Mulji Cheddha and his sons and when this garage was sought to be cleaned on 21-8-1986, the assau1t was made and that is how one person was killed and three others were seriously injured. 1his purchase was, however not liked to by aforementioned Jethalal Mulji Cheddha and his sons and when this garage was sought to be cleaned on 21-8-1986, the assau1t was made and that is how one person was killed and three others were seriously injured. Assistant Police Sub-Inspector Kamble of the Mobile Van was altered and at his intervention, Chunilal Bhimshi Cheddha was taken to the Nair Hospital; on the way to the Hospital, deceased Chunilal is supposed to have disclosed to Kamble who were the assailants and on the basis of his dying declaration, C.R. No. 662 of 1986 was registered at the Gamdevi Police Station for the offences under Sections 302, 134, 144, 148,307, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Respondent No. 1 Girish, Respondent No. 3 Mahendra Jadeja, Respondent No. 4 Vasant Krishnaji Parab and Respondent No. 5 Jivanji Jadeja were arrested on 22-8-1986. Respondent No. 2 Shailesh Jethalal Cheddha surrendered to the Police on 3-9-1986. Jethalal Mulji Cheddha, the father of Girish and Shailesh, was arrested once he surrendered on 1-9-1986. On their arrest they were produced before the concerned Metropolitan Magistrate who remanded them to Police custody. 5. On 26-8-1986 Respondent Girish Jethalal Cheddha filed an application for admitting him to bail before the Court of Sessions, Greater Bombay, however, the same was rejected on 29-8-1986. He then filed on 1-9-1986 an application for bail before this Court, being Criminal Application No. 1397 of 1986 and the same was also rejected on 2-9-1986. Once that application of Girish Jethalal Cheddha was rejected, his brother Shailesh Jethalal Cheddba withdrew his application for anticipatory bail before this Court on the same day, i.e. 2-9-1986. 6. The impugned orders were made on the applications preferred by Jethalal Mulji Cheddha jointly with his sons Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and the other being by Respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 on 12-9-1986. This prayer for bail found favour in so far as the present Respondents are concerned, though it was rejected in the case of Jethalal Mulji Cheddha. The Respondents are released on bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety and in lieu thereof, on their depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, with a further condition that they shall report at the Gamdevi Police Station every day between 5.00 p m. and 7.00 p m. for fifteen days. 7. The Respondents are released on bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety and in lieu thereof, on their depositing a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each, with a further condition that they shall report at the Gamdevi Police Station every day between 5.00 p m. and 7.00 p m. for fifteen days. 7. Shri Baraday, the learned Public Prosecutor, in support of the application for cancellation of bail, firstly, submitted that the impugned orders made by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, are liable to be set aside being non-speaking orders and for not having assigned any reasons as to why he was granting bail to the present Respondents and despite the fact that the bail applications presented on behalf of the Respondents were vehemently opposed. He further mentions that there were cogent reasons which compelled the prosecution to oppose the bail applications moved by the Respondents before the Sessions Court, as the investigation was still in progress; that the assault on the victims that took place was by knives, swords, etc. and these weapons have to be recovered; that at garage No. 3 where the incident is alleged to have taken place a scooter is found parked and below it, there are bloodstains; that though the Police have been able to know the owner of the scooter, yet he is not traced; that it is necessary to know not only the owner of the scooter but the person who might have driven it and how far that person might have been involved in the alleged incident; that about thirteen gunny bags containing some grains, onions, jawar and potatoes are also found to have been stocked and they are besmeared with blood and that garage No. 3 was found to have an additional lock over the lock already existing and that too once the Respondents were released. In the circumstances, it must be found out as to who are the culprits involved in the matter of murder of one person and serious assault on three others and, therefore, it was too premature for the learned Sessions Judge to have granted the bail. 8. In the circumstances, it must be found out as to who are the culprits involved in the matter of murder of one person and serious assault on three others and, therefore, it was too premature for the learned Sessions Judge to have granted the bail. 8. The second point canvassed by Shri Baraday is that a few days earlier on 2-9-1986 when Respondent Girish Cheddha moved an application before this Court for grant of bail to him, this Court had observed that the investigation is in progress and the Investigating Agency must be given a fair chance to investigate. That bail application having been rejected by this Court on those grounds, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have been doubly careful in not granting the bail and if at all he was inclined, the learned Sessions Judge should have made a speaking order so that the higher Court would know what are the reasons which compelled or impelled him in granting bail to the Respondents. 9. Shri N.H. Gursahani learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner in Criminal Revision Application No. 360 of 1986, while supporting whatever contentions raised for cancellation of bail by the learned Public Prosecutor, added a few things more. He points out that according to GR. No. 662 of 1986 with the Gamdevi Police, the offence being under Sections 302, 134, 144, 147, 148, 307, 452 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, it is clear that the Respondents constituted an unlawful assembly and it is, therefore, necessary for the Investigating Agency to know as to who played what part in the matter of this incident and assault in which admittedly several persons were injured and one person was killed. In any event, he contends that the incident that had taken place is serious enough which requires a thorough investigation and. therefore, at the stage when the investigation is in progress, there was no question of the learned Sessions Judge having granted to the Respondents, at least the circumstances do not justify grant of bail. 10. In any event, he contends that the incident that had taken place is serious enough which requires a thorough investigation and. therefore, at the stage when the investigation is in progress, there was no question of the learned Sessions Judge having granted to the Respondents, at least the circumstances do not justify grant of bail. 10. His next submission is that there may be other links involved and these missing links are to be looked for and they are the owner of the scooter and if not the owner, the rider who brought the scooter at the relevant time and found parked in garage No. 3, the scene of offence, and the person who might have put the Jock to that garage and several other things which are yet to be detected by the Investigating Agency, including the weapons. 11. Relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghunath Laxman Makadwada v. State of Maharashtra1 Shri Gursahani questioned the impugned orders made by the learned Sessions Judge. According to him, the learned Sessions Judge while granting bail to the Respondents must assign reasons as to why he is granting bail when it was very strongly opposed on behalf of the Investigating Agency and more particularly when the investigation bad been going on. Based on the ratio of that decision, according to him, the impugned orders cannot be sustained even for a moment and they are liable to be quashed solely on that ground. 12. Shri Gursahani next referred to some authorities to which I will come a little later as I will deal with the case on behalf of the Respondents. 13. Shri Adhik Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 Girish and Shailesh Cheddha, while supporting the impugned orders granting bail mentions that in the F.I.R. lodged immediately after the so-called incident of 21st August, 1986 gives out a motive for the alleged incident of assault and in this connection, he invites my attention that the very version of the injured party in relation to the purchase of garage No. 3, cannot be accepted. On the background of the litigation, which is going on in the City Civil Court which has even granted an interim injunction, Shri Shirodkar tried to show that the injured party could not have purchased garage No. 3 on 6-8-1986 and on further consideration of the Commissioner's Report submitted to the very City Civil Court, it is just not possible to accept that at any time prior to 28-8-1986 that garage could have been at all purchased by the members of the injured party. It is, therefore, suggested by Shri Shirodkar that once that motive fails, then the structure built on that motive must also crumble. Motive is not relevant in a crime of this sort, but once introduced by the prosecution, it is relevant, so says learned Counsel. Making a reference to the F.I.R. he says that the A.S.I. Kamble of the Mobile Van says that he was alerted that a fight bad been going on and the fact remains, according to Shri Shirodkar that even Respondent No.4 Parab and Respondent No.5 Jadeja had suffered injuries. Therefore, even when the Police were for the first time alerted, he urges that there was a faction fight and once there was a faction fight and even if in such fight death has ensued, there can hardly be a scope for accusing the Respondents of murder or attracting a charge under Section 302, I.P.C. The word" ", according to him, weakens the investigation and viewed thus, if the Sessions Court has granted bail, there cannot be any cancellation of bail by this Court. 14. On the concept of grant of bail under Section 437(1) and Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Shri Shirodkar has placed reliance on some authorities and sought also to distinguish the authorities relied upon by Shri Gursahani. 15. In the decision in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)2, according to Shri Shirodkar, the Supreme Court has laid down that there are only two paramount considerations for the guidance of the Court to determine in what matters bail can be granted and they are (1) likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and (2) his tampering with the evidence relating to a fair trial in a Court of justice. In the same Volume he also referred to a decision in the case of the State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, at page 952 and relying upon paragraph 13 thereof, he urges that rejection of bail when bail is sought for is entirely different from cancellation of bail once granted. According to him, the considerations for these two matters are entirely different. 16. It is true that in so far as this case is concerned, it has been dearly laid that: "Rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made." Shri Shirodkar thereafter lays hands on a decision in the case of Miss Harsh Sawhney v. Union Territory (Chandigarh Admn.)3, where the Supreme Court granted bail after rejecting the contention of the other side that the presence of that lady was required for making a search and recovery of certain documents. The other contention put up by the prosecution was also negatived by the Supreme Court, viz. that the lady's presence was also required for the purposes of interrogation in connection with investigation. 17. On the basis of these three authorities, it is now urged by Shri Shirodkar that even if the Investigating Officer wants to find out the owner of the scooter or the person who drove the scooter and the blood spilt below the scooter and further wants to detect the blood spilt over various gunny bags lying in garage No. 3, the presence of the Respondent in Police custody or judicial custody is not required and inasmuch as the orders of the learned Sessions Judge requiring the Respondents to appear before the Investigating Officer, is sufficient for that purpose. He also mentions that in the matter of blood, at the most, it is a matter of panchnama and forwarding the sample to the Chemical Analyser and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination these two aspects of the matter would require the presence of the Respondents in Police custody. He also mentions that in the matter of blood, at the most, it is a matter of panchnama and forwarding the sample to the Chemical Analyser and, therefore, by no stretch of imagination these two aspects of the matter would require the presence of the Respondents in Police custody. He then invited my attention to the very many statements made by the Respondents in the application which gives their history, what are they, their position and status and all this naturally to suggest that there cannot be any apprehension in the mind of the Investigating Agency that the Petitioners will flee from justice and be not available for a fair trial. In the same breath, he also mentions that this being almost a faction fight, the prosecution witnesses are so connected with the injured party that there could be no apprehension whatever that the Respondents will try to tamper with such witnesses and obviously there is no scope for it at all. Referring to the case of Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat4, he lays stress on the words used by the Supreme Court that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail" and further that "power to grant bail is not exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed". 18. Coming to the first attack from learned Counsel in support of the cancellation of bail, they have heavily relied upon a decision in the case of Raghunath Laxman Makadwada v. State of Maharashtra (supra). The Supreme Court has no doubt frowned upon this Court making one worded order "rejected". 19. In so far as the present case is concerned, it is common ground that the order relating to Respondents Nos 1 and 2 is not a speaking order and all that impugned order mentions is that: "The application of Jethalal the Applicant No. 2 is rejected. He may apply after the next date of remand. The Applicants 1 and 3 Girish and Shailesh shall be released on bail of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each. One surety each. They shall be released immediately upon depositing Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). However, Applicants 1 and 3 shall execute the surety bonds on or before 23-9-1986. If they fail to execute the surety bonds, this order shall stand vacated forthwith. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) each. One surety each. They shall be released immediately upon depositing Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). However, Applicants 1 and 3 shall execute the surety bonds on or before 23-9-1986. If they fail to execute the surety bonds, this order shall stand vacated forthwith. The Investigating Officer to accept cash today and comply with this order. The Applicants 1 and 3 shall report at the police station everyday between 5 and 7 p.m. for 15 days." This order is similar to the other order granting bail to Respondents No.3, 4 and 5. 20. Going by the rationale laid down by the Supreme Court in the case referred to (supra), there is no difficulty in holding that these are not speaking orders. There is some justification when Shri Baraday, the learned Public Prosecutor, and Shri Gursahani, learned Counsel, put forth their grievance that despite the bail applications moved by the Respondents were vehemently opposed, the learned Sessions Judge, chose not to make speaking orders while granting bail to the Respondents. Apart from this, there is one more aspect of these impugned orders. It may be seen that although they are not speaking orders, they are not simple orders of granting bail to somebody or rejecting bail to somebody, but composite orders where bail is rejected to Applicant Jethalal and admitting others to bail. Therefore, taking any view of the matters, it was clearly incumbent upon the learned Sessions Judge to have assigned reasons and made speaking orders as to why he was refusing bail to Jethalal the father of Girish and Shailesh, and admitting Girish and Shailesh and others to bail. There is nothing before me to know as to what prevailed with the learned Sessions Judge in refusing bail to one and granting it to others. This being the position, it will be necessary for this Court to find out whether the bail granted to the Respondents is justified or not or whether the present applications on behalf of the Petitioners for cancellation of bail are liable to be granted. 21. The power to cancel bail is spoken to in sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 21. The power to cancel bail is spoken to in sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It has been rightly pointed out by Shri Adhik Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents, that paramount considerations that should weigh in the mind of the Court are (1) the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and (2) the accused tampering with the prosecution evidence relating to the fair trial. He is also equally correct in pointing out that there are no allegations from the Investigating agency that the present Respondents will either tamper with the prosecution evidence or by the nature of things, they are likely to flee from justice. But as pointed out in the very case (Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (supra), the variable factors are held to be not exhaustive. That case has made reference to two paramount considerations and that does not mean that other variable factors cannot be looked into by the Court for cancellation of bail. Therefore, in a fit case even if the aforementioned two paramount considerations are absent, in my view bail granted could be cancelled if investigation demands cancellation. 22. According to learned Counsel in support for cancellation of bail, the incident that bas happened in the evening of 21st August, 1986 is serious enough where one person has been almost instantaneously killed and three others are seriously injured. The dispute as emanated from the so-called purchase of the garage, which is admittedly adjacent to garage No. 2 in occupation of the Respondents, according to the prosecution, itself revealed that the Respondents' party was interested in purchasing that garage and, therefore, the present incident took place only because the injured party purchased that garage. 23. It is then pointed out that a scooter is found in the garage and though the name of the owner of the scooter is traced, the owner is not so far available for investigation. At any rate, it must be detected as to who was driving that scooter or the rider who brought the scooter into the garage. The other thing is that another lock is put over the lock already existing and that person is also to be found. This happened once the Respondents were released on bail. This allegation is not less important. 24. The other thing is that another lock is put over the lock already existing and that person is also to be found. This happened once the Respondents were released on bail. This allegation is not less important. 24. There may be some justification when Shri Shirodkar points out that for the purposes of collecting blood sample from the garage or sending it to the Chemical Analyser, the presence of the Respondents in Police custody is not necessary and I am in agreement with this part of the argument. But it must be then seen that the parties are otherwise carrying on business and they are neighbours. A charge of unlawful assembly is also to be found in the C.R. The other links in the chain have got to be detected. Therefore a continuous investigation is preferred and that too in a matter which is admittedly serious. The fact that the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application of Jethalal shows that he wanted to give time to the Cnves1igating Agency to go ahead with the investigation. The same principle must apply to the other co-accused/Respondents. No distinction has been Show between the case of Jethalal Cheddha whose bail application is refused and the Respondents whose application has been granted. 25. However, I would refrain from saying anything more in this matter as the investigation has to go on and since the matter is in my view, involves a murder apart from serious injuries to three other persons, in the circumstances, the bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge to the Respondents ought to be cancelled. 26. The impugned orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, dated 12-9-1986 are hereby quashed and the bail granted to the Respondents is cancelled under sub-section (2) of Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They are remanded to Police custody for ten days from the time they surrender to the Gamdevi Police and on the expiry of the remand period, they shall be produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate. If the Respondents file bail application, the learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the same on merits without being influenced by any observations made in this Judgment but, however, on assigning reasons. The Respondents shall surrender to the Gamdevi Police at 5.00 p.m. on 6th October 1986. 27. If the Respondents file bail application, the learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the same on merits without being influenced by any observations made in this Judgment but, however, on assigning reasons. The Respondents shall surrender to the Gamdevi Police at 5.00 p.m. on 6th October 1986. 27. At this stage, Shri Adhik Shirodkar, learned Counsel for the Respondents, mentions that the date for surrender of the Respondents to the Gamdevi Police be extended till 15th October 1986 on the ground that the Supreme Court is on Vacation and no Vacation Judge has been assigned for urgent matters. Though this extension is opposed by Shri Baraday, the learned Public Prosecutor, I am inclined to accept the request of Shri Shirodkar. Accordingly, the Respondents shall surrender before the Gamdevi Police by 5.00 p.m. on 15th October 1986. In the meantime, the Respondents are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer Shri Pote at Gamdevi Police Station between 3.00 p.m. and 6.00 p.m. everyday. Rule is made absolute. Bail cancelled. 1. A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1070. 2. 1978 Crl. L.J. 149. 3. 1978 S.C.C. (Crl.) 189. 4. 1984 Crl. L.J. 160.