JUDGMENT B.L. Yadav, J. 1. This is an application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for cancellation of bail granted to Mukesh alias Mukki by the Sessions Judge, Agra and to Rajesh alias Annu and Om Prakash Sharma on 23-4-1985 by this Court in Crime No. 268 of 1984 under sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC. The opposite parties were also granted bail in crime no. 496 of 1986. These three accused were involved in the aforesaid case (Crime No. 268 of 1984) for the murder of one Narain Swarup Sharma who was the father of the present applicant Smt. Sudha Rami who was an eye-witness in the aforesaid case. 2. In the present application for cancellation of bail it has been alleged that after the bail was granted to the opposite parties, namely, Mukesh alias Mukki, Rajesh alias Annu and Om Prakash Sharma, they have committed an offence under section 307 IPC. (Crime No. 496 of 1986), Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and in that incident Satyadeo and Krishnakant, the real brothers of the applicant, received injuries and the first information report was lodged by the present applicant. The bail application] of the opposite parties was rejected by this Court in the offence under section 307 IPC (Crime No. 496 of 1986). But thereafter these three opposite parties applied for parole/bail before the Sessions Judge, Agra and the said application was allowed. As a result thereof these three opposite parties are on bail at present. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite parties. But thereafter these three opposite parties applied for parole/bail before the Sessions Judge, Agra and the said application was allowed. As a result thereof these three opposite parties are on bail at present. The present application has been filed by the applicant for the cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite parties. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that once the bail was rejected by this Court to the opposite parties in Crime No. 496 of 1986 in a case under section 307 IPC there was no justification that subsequent to that the bail application of the opposite parties must have been allowed by the Sessions Judge, Agra It was next urged that the opposite parties were interfering with the fair trial inasmuch as they attempted to murder Satyadeo and Krishnakant, the real brothers of the applicant (Smt. Sudha Rani Sharma) who was an eye-witness in the earlier murder case (Crime No. 268 of 1984) in which the father of the applicant was killed and these opposite parties also said while inflicting injuries on these two persons that they were doing pairvi in the murder case of their father, therefore they would also be killed. A true copy of the First Information report (Crime No. 496 of 1986) has already been filed as Annexure 3' to the supplementary affidavit. Reliance was also placed on Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), AIR 1976 SC 179, The State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 SC 961 , Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC 372 and Gama Pd. v. Guru Pd. Pathak, Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 1782 of 1986, Decided on 16-5-1986. 3. The learned counsel for the opposite parties, however, urged that under the circumstances of the case no ground was made out for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite parties. The principles for cancellation to the bail were as to whether the earlier trial in which the bail was granted was going to be affected. It was further urged that no attempt was made on the life of Smt. Sudha Rani Sharma who was an eye-witness in the earlier case in which her father was killed. The principles for cancellation to the bail were as to whether the earlier trial in which the bail was granted was going to be affected. It was further urged that no attempt was made on the life of Smt. Sudha Rani Sharma who was an eye-witness in the earlier case in which her father was killed. The subsequent offence under section 307 IPC was an independent offence for which the trial may proceed against the opposite parties but there was no justification for cancellation of the bail. Reliance was placed on Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 CrLJ 160 = AIR 1984 SC 372 which was also relied upon by the applicant's learned counsel. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The principles for cancellation of bail have been laid down in State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi (Supra) to the following effect (vide Para 13 page 965) :- "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 and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. " Further in paragraph 14 on page 966 it was observed as follows :- " The prosecution, therefore, can establish its case in an application for cancellation of bail by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused has attempted to tamper or has tampered with its witnesses. " Similarly in Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) (Supra) it was held that two paramount considerations, viz. likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relating to ensuring a fair trial of the case in a court of justice. 5. In Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (Supra) a case relied upon by both the sides, it was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. 6. 5. In Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of Gujarat (Supra) a case relied upon by both the sides, it was held that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. 6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case there is no denying the fact that after the earlier occurrence, Crime No. 268 of 1984, in which the father of the applicant was killed, the opposite parties were granted bail and they attempted to commit murder of the two real brothers of the applicant by inflicting injuries from firm arm (Crime No. 496 of 1986). They also said while inflicting injuries that they (the brothers of the applicant) were doing very sincere pairvi from the side of the prosecution in the murder case in which their father was killed. It is accordingly obvious that they attempted to interfere with the course of fair trial. It was urged by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that no attempt was made on the life of the applicant who was an eyewitness in the earlier murder case in which her father was killed. But considering the entire circumstances of the case a serious attempt for murder on the lives of the real brothers of the prosecution witness was certainly an attempt to interfere with the fair trial. I do not agree with the suggestion of the learned counsel for the opposite parties that there was no truth in the prosecution story set up in the subsequent case under section 307 IPC. At this stage this Court is not called upon to ascertain the correctness in the subsequent prosecution case. There may be some variations in the prosecution story but the same will be seen at the time of trial. The real test in such matters is that the prosecution can establish its case in the application for cancellation of bail of the accused, by showing on a preponderance of probabilities that the accused had attempted to tamper or had tampered with the prosecution witnesses, that there is a reasonable apprehension that he will interfere with the course of justice. In Tahir v. Shaukat, 1986 AWC -555 I had to consider in a similar situation as to whether under the circumstances of that case bail should be cancelled. In Tahir v. Shaukat, 1986 AWC -555 I had to consider in a similar situation as to whether under the circumstances of that case bail should be cancelled. It was also urged in that case that the prosecution story in the subsequent case did not appear to be correct and the injuries inflicted appears to be fabricated and self inflicted. Under Para 8 it was observed as follows :- "I am not in fact called upon to decide the subsequent criminal case on merits nor I am called upon to record a finding of conviction or acquittal against the opposite party no. 1. What I am concerned is as to whether the opposite party no. 1 has tried to interfere with the fair trial and whether he has misused his liberty and as to whether he has interfered with the course of justice or there are reasonable apprehensions to the same effect." 7. In Gama Prasad v. Guru Datt Pathak )(Supra) it was observed that the accused who has been given the privilege of bail, must guard the liberty so granted from being abused or misused by involvement in non-bailable offences. 8. Applying the principles aforesaid to the present case I am of the opinion that the opposite parties by inflicting injuries with fire arm on the real brothers of the applicant who was the eye-witness in the earlier case under section 302 IPC in which her father was killed, they have interfered with the fair trial of the case and the cause of justice and have misused the liberty granted to them. Consequently they are not entitled to remain on bail in Crime No. 268 of 1984 under section 302 IPC etc. and Crime No. 496 of 1986 under section 307 IPC etc. Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and the orders granting them bail deserve to be set aside. The opposite parties, namely, Mukesh alias Mukki, Rajesh alias Annu and Om Prakash Sharma are on bail. Their bail bonds deserves to be cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith. and Crime No. 496 of 1986 under section 307 IPC etc. Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and the orders granting them bail deserve to be set aside. The opposite parties, namely, Mukesh alias Mukki, Rajesh alias Annu and Om Prakash Sharma are on bail. Their bail bonds deserves to be cancelled and they shall be taken into custody forthwith. In the result, the present application of the applicant (Smt. Sudha Rani Sharma) for cancellation of the bail, granted to the opposite parties Mukesh alias Mukki, Rajesh alias Annu, both sons of Krishna Dayal, resident of Chhatta Gali, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra and Om Prakash Sharma son of Chiranji Lal Sharma, resident of Bisawan Gali, Gudri Mansur Khan, Police Station Chhatta, District Agra, in Crime No. 268 of 1984 and Crime No. 496 of 1986, is allowed. The orders granting bail to the opposite parties in Crime No. 268 of 1984 under sections 302, 147, 148, 149 IPC etc. and in Crime No. 496 of 1986 under section 307 IPC etc. are set aside. They shall be taken into custody forthwith. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties are discharged. The office is also directed to send a copy of this order to the Senior Superintendent of Police Agra with a direction to take into custody the opposite parties forthwith. Application allowed.