JUDGMENT 1. This is an application under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. for cancellation of bail granted to two non-petitioners Bhupendra Singh and Amrik Singh. The main ground taken for cancelling their bail is that they are tampering with the prosecution witness and that they had obtained an order releasing them on bail by misrepresenting before this Court. 2. The case against the two non-petitioners is under Section 302 IPC and is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Deeg. They have been accused of causing the death of their brother Shamsher Singh, in the first week of May, 1985. The case of the prosecution is that the mother of the accused and deceased has expired on April 30, 1985 and all the sons and other relatives had gathered-together for condolence. It was at that time that some altercation took place between these brothers and the accused inflicted blows upon Shamsher Singh, who subsequently died. He was taken to Delhi for treatment and different versions were given by the accused about the cause of the injuries on him. Smt. Raj Kaur, who is the widow of the deceased and her father Swami Harbans Singh, who is the petitioner before me lodged a report with the police, upon which a case was registered and after presentation of challan, the accused were committed to stand trial before the Sessions Judge. 3. The accused first moved an application for grant of anticipatory bail, but that was rejected by the trial court as well as this Court. In this case Mr. K N Shrimal Advocate appeared on behalf of the accused persons. Subsequently a bail-application was moved under Section 439 Cr. P. C. but this was also rejected as by this time the challan had not been put up. The third bail- application of the accused persons was granted by me on 22.11.85. While deciding this application, Mr. K. N. Shrimal appeared on behalf of the State while the petitioners were represented by Mr. Jagdeep Dhanker. One of the contentions raised by the accused persons in this application was that they have to look after not only their aged father but also the family of the deceased Shamsher Singh and if they were not released on bail, they would not be able to render the duties towards their relations. Jagdeep Dhanker. One of the contentions raised by the accused persons in this application was that they have to look after not only their aged father but also the family of the deceased Shamsher Singh and if they were not released on bail, they would not be able to render the duties towards their relations. Considering these circumstances they were directed to be released on bail on their furnishing surety. 4. On behalf of the complainant, it has been contended that the accused persons falsely represented that they were looking after the family of the deceased Shamshcr Singh. It is also contended that their application was, as a matter of fact uncontested because Mr. K. N. Shrimal had been their counsel on one occasion. Now, the petitioner has filed affidavits to show that the accused persons are tampering with the witnesses with the result that two witnesses, namely, Subedar and Avtar Singh Compounder have turned hostile. In the affidavits, it has been stated that these witnesses came to the Court under heavy guard provided by the accused and their relations and could not be expected to speak the truth. They had to be declared hostile. Smt. Raj Kaur, widow of the deceased has given an affidavit in which she has deposed that when she met the accused in the market, she had been asked not to say that the deceased died as result of blow given by the accused. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the condition of the widow of the deceased has become very precarious as she is neither getting any support and at the same time because of threats given by the accused, is not in a position to give a free statement before the Court. She is an eye-witness of the incident and unless she has some protection from the accused she would not be in a position to make a proper statement in the Court. 5. The learned counsel for the accused persons has contended that merely because two witnesses have turned hostile, it is no ground for cancellation of the bail of the accused because the witnesses can change their evidence for a number of reasons and there is no evidence to show that they have been tampered with by the accused persons. They have submitted affidavits to deny the allegations made by the petitioner. They have submitted affidavits to deny the allegations made by the petitioner. They have again and again submitted that the incident did not occur as alleged by the prosecution but Shamsher Singh on the fateful night had become drunk and had' fallen on the stones. The accused persons even took him for treatment to Delhi but all their efforts could not save Shamsher Singh. 6. The accused persons have relied upon State v. Sanjay Gandhi 1978 Cr. L. R. (SC) 309 , and contended that merely because there is an occasional tampering with the witness, the accused should not be denied the benefit of bail. It is contended that liberty of a person has to be zealously guarded and should not be lightly interfered with. 7. Considering the powers of the Court u/s 439 (2) Cr. P. C. it has been observed in the above decision that the power to take back in custody, the accused, who has been enlarged on bail has to be exercised with care. The power of an extra-ordinary nature, is meant to be exercised in appropriate cases such as when by any probabilities it is clear that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with the witnesses. 8. It would depend upon the evidence of each case whether the Court should exercise the power u/s 439 (2) or not. If the Court is satisfied that this power is to be exercised then it cannot become a silent spectator to the subversion of judicial process. There may be actully tampering with the witness or there may be a mere apprehension of the same and it would depend upon the circumstances whether the court should cancel the bail already granted to an accused or not. 9. The facts in the present case are that the deceased was a brother of the two accused persons. The main eye-witness to the incident who is coming forward is the widow of the deceased & there may be other relations in the house itself. They may or may not be coming out with the true story. It is very necessary that the widow of the deceased should be in a position to give out the correct version and not be under the influence of the accused. They may or may not be coming out with the true story. It is very necessary that the widow of the deceased should be in a position to give out the correct version and not be under the influence of the accused. It is true that witness turn hostile, even without tampering by the accused and this by itself may not be a ground for cancelling the bail granted to them but when the affidavits in the present case show that the witnesses have been brought to the Court under heavy guard of the relations of the accused persons, this is a circumstance to show their influence over them and their inability to give an independent version before the Court. The threatening to Smt. Raj Kaur not to depose against accused is also established by her affidavit. While deciding this application it is not necessary to arrive at a positive finding about the tampering of witnesses by the accused persons but when there are circumstances to show that the allegations made in the petition may be reasonably correct then it is a proper case in which the bail of the accused deserves to be cancelled. It may also be mentioned that one of the grounds on which the bail of the accused persons was granted was that they are to look after the family of the deceased but this has been shown to be incorrect. Therefore, I consider it a fit case where the bail granted to the accused should be cancelled till the witnesses of the prosecution are examined before the Sessions Judge. 10. The petition is accepted and it is directed that the accused persons shall be arrested and kept in custody. Their bail is cancelled for such time as all the prosecution witnesses are examined before the Sessions Court.Bail cancelled. *******