I.S. ISRANI, J.—All these three applications arise out of the same incident which took place on 9-4-1987, in which three persons are said to have been murdered, therefore, all the three applications are decided and disposed of by this order. The incident that took place on April 9, 1987, is said to be third in the string of incidents, two of which had already taken place. The first incident is said to have taken 15-20 days earlier then the date on which this incident took place in which Mst. Hasina is said to have been raped by Daulat and two others, whose names were not given at that time. In this incident, regarding which these applications have been filed, the contention of Shri Rajawat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused Mahaveer and Badrilal is that the name of both these applicants has been mentioned by Karan Singh, the auto-riksha driver only. Their names were not mentioned by other witnesses. It is also submitted that there is no allegation that either of these accused persons were not carrying any weapons with them. These accused persons are in custody since April 20, 1987. It is also stated that they have no previous criminal record to their discredit. It is further contended that their case is similar, if not better than that of accused Sanjay Singh aged 18 years, who has been already released on bail. It is given come out that the age of accused Mahaveer is 20 years. It is further contended that in dying declaration of deceased Aysha, their names do not appear as the name of Sanjay Singh also does not appear. 2. The contention of Shri M. S. Bhargava, learned counsel appearing for Sanjay Singh is that no ground exists for cancellation of the bail granted to Sanjay Singh. It is contended that one of she grounds taken in the application is that there is every likelihood that accused Sanjay Singh will tamper with the prosecution witnesses. It is submitted by the learned counsel that accused Sanjay Singh has been on bail since 6th July, 1986, but no such specific allegation has been made, therefore, this ground does not exist in favour of prosecution for getting the bail granted to Sanjay Singh cancelled. It is submitted by the learned counsel that accused Sanjay Singh has been on bail since 6th July, 1986, but no such specific allegation has been made, therefore, this ground does not exist in favour of prosecution for getting the bail granted to Sanjay Singh cancelled. It is further pointed out by learned counsel that even auto-riksha driver Karan Singh does not mention name of accused Sanjay Singh to be one of those who came alongwith group of accused persons. It is also pointed out that no weapon has been recovered from this accused person. The plea of learned counsel is that infact Sanjay Singh was only 16 years and four months, even though in the prosecution his age has been mentioned as 18 years. 3. It is also pointed out that his conduct in jail was very satisfactory and he has been attending all court hearings which have taken place since he was released on bail. Shri Kumawat learned Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of State, points out that some-how at that time when application of accused Sanjay Singh was argued the statements of Raju, ten years old, son of deceased Ramjani (husband of Aysha) and that of Rakesh were not pointed out to the Court for consideration, therefore, the impact of these two statements could not be considered at that time. It is, therefore, submitted that these statements may be considered now and the bail may be cancelled as according to these witnesses, the presence of Sanjay Singh is proved at the time of incident. 4. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and also both the counsel and gone through the statements pointed out by both the parties. Karan Singh auto-riksha driver, in his statement u/s 161 Cr. P. C. has named Badri Narain, as well as Mahaveer, whose applications are under consideration. According to him when the auto-riksha was taken to the spot where accident took place, both the accused persons also travelled in his auto-riksha. He further says that while he was standing out-side the Kachi Basti, where the incident took place, he heard some voice and therefore, started his auto-riksha to go away from the spot. At that time accused Mahaveer came near his auto-riksha and told him that a murder has taken place and asked him to leave the place quickly. He further says that while he was standing out-side the Kachi Basti, where the incident took place, he heard some voice and therefore, started his auto-riksha to go away from the spot. At that time accused Mahaveer came near his auto-riksha and told him that a murder has taken place and asked him to leave the place quickly. He also states that when he got down from the auto-riksha, he told him that he should not mention his name to any-one-else regarding his travelling in auto-riksha and coming to the spot where the murder took place, otherwise he will suffer the consequences. From the above statement, itself it is evident that accused Mahaveer was with the gang of accused persons who went to commit ghastly three murders. From the beginning he was there till the time when the murders took place. He left the scene only after the murders had taken place and then with a view to save himself horded auto-riksha and asked the auto-riksha driver to leave the spot immediately. When he alighted, he threatened the auto-riksha driver with dire consequences if his name was revealed by him to any-one-else. This evidence is enough to show his involvement and therefore, I consider that he does not deserve to be released on bail and his application is, therefore, rejected. 5. Regarding the allegation of Badri Lal, Karan Singh, auto-riksha driver has also mentioned his name to be amongst those who travelled his auto-riksha. As pointed out by learned Public Prosecutor, at the instance of this accused person a knife has been recovered as per information given by him u/s 27 of the Evidence Act. His involvement is, therefore, quite clear and I do not find any reason to accept his application, which is hereby rejected. 6. Regarding cancellation of the bail application of Sanjay Singh, the contention of learned Public Prosecutor is that the statements of Raju, 10 years old, s/o Ramjani and Rakesh, recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. were not pointed out to this Court, hence these statements may be taken into consideration for cancellation of the bail, granted to accused Sanjay Singh. To say the least the prosecution agency does not point out statements which are considered important to the Court at the time when bail applications in such important cases are under consideration. Bail to Sanjay Singh was granted on July 6, 1987. To say the least the prosecution agency does not point out statements which are considered important to the Court at the time when bail applications in such important cases are under consideration. Bail to Sanjay Singh was granted on July 6, 1987. So far as cancellation of the bail is concerned, set of reasons has to be different than those which are applied at the time when the application for grant of the bail is under consideration. In Bihagirath Singh Vs. State of Gujarat (1), relevant considerations have been laid down for this purpose by the Apex Court. It has been pointed out that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking — cancellation of the bail. In the application filed by the prosecution and during the course of arguments, no grounds have been shown to exist, which may call for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused Sanjay Singh. In the application under consideration, it has been mentioned that "there is apprehension of every possibility that he will tamper with the prosecution witnesses." The accused person has been on bail since July, 1987, and as yet the prosecution has not pointed out any incident in which the accused may have tried to tamper with the evidence of the prosecution. Merely because the prosecution failed in its duty to point out certain statements which it thought proper, to be considered at the time of consideration of the bail application of accused Sanjay Singh, it cannot be made ground for cancellation of the bail, which was granted after hearing both the parties. It need not be mentioned that if at any time accused Sanjay Singh indulgences in such activities is tampering with the prosecution witnesses or any other objectionable acts, the same can be considered as grounds for cancellation of the bail granted to him and the prosecution is always at liberty to approach the Court. 7. The application of the prosecution for cancellation of the bail is, therefore, dismissed. None of the observations made above shall cause any prejudice to either of the parties during the course of trial and at the time of final disposal of the case.