K. RAMCHANDRIAB, J. ( 1 ) THREE days short of a year back, the respondents were granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 149 of 1987 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, by order dated 2 1-11-1987 subject to the conditions that (a) they shall execute a bond for Rs. 10,000/-each with two solvent sureties for a like sum in respect of each of them; (b) they shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence and (c) they shall attend Nandagudi Police Station once in a fortnight preferably on a Sunday for a period of three months or until the charge sheet is filed, whichever is earlier. ( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, the State represented by Special Public Prosecutor specifically appointed for the conduct of the case on hand has filed this petition under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code praying that the impugned order may be cancelled in the interest of justice for the grounds set out in the petition. ( 3 ) THE respondents herein and one other person by name Kadirappa were petitioners 1 to 3 respectively and the petitioner herein was the respondent in Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 1987. For the sake of convenience, reference, will hereinafter be made to the parties to this petition with reference to the position they respectively occupied in the Sessions Court. ( 4 ) THE facts which have given rise to this petition are briefly as under; (a) A case in Crime No. 143 of 1987 was registered in Nandagudi Police Station for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A I. P. C. and clauses (a) and (b) of Section 89 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short the Acttt) on the basis of a written complaint presented by one Muniswamappa, son of Sonnappa of Begur village, Sulibele Hobli, Hosakote Taluk at 15 hours on 23-8-1987. (b) The averments made in the said complaint are as under: When Muniswamappa was sleeping in his house on the night of 22-8-1987, some persons of Muthasandra village came to his house at about 11-00 P. M. and informed him that when Narayanaswamy and Anjanappa were coming on a motor cycle at a place situated in front of Bhimanalikamahalli gate at a distance of about half a kilometre from Nandagudi side, a motor vehicle of some person came from behind the motor cycle and dashed against it and there-upon Narayanaswamy and Anjanappa travelling on that motor cycle bearing No. MEO 9945 had fallen down at the spot along with the motor cycle. On getting that information, Muniswamappa came to the spot and learnt that when Narayanaswamy was riding his motor cycle No. MEO 9945 with Anjanappa as a pillion rider on it at that spot at about 10-30 P. M. one unknown driver of a motor vehicle came driving the vehicle from Chintamani side towards Hoskote at a high speed and in a negligent manner and had dashed against motor cycle No. MEO 9945 and as a result Anjanappa sitting on the pillion seat of the motor cycle had fallen down dead at the spot itself with head injuries and his right leg was also cut and Narayanaswamy was also lying at the spot with cut injuries on his right leg and right hand and he had been removed to S. G. Hospital for treatment in a jeep by the Circle Inspector and his damaged motor cycle bearing No. MEO 9945 was lying at the spot. He, therefore, wanted appropriate action to be taken against the motor vehicle concerned and its driver after tracing them out. (c) Narayanaswamy was treated in the S. G. Hospital till the evening of 23-8. 1987 as an in-patient and thereafter he was shifted to Chaya Nursing Home and admitted to that Nursing Home at 6-00 P. M. on 23-8-1987 by his brother Dr. Dinakar with the history of Road Traffic Accident (R. T. A.) on 22. 8-1987 at 9-15 P. M. near Mallimakapura on Bangalore Chintamani Road between motor cycle No. MEO 9945 and a lorry whose number was not known. (vide Xerox copy of case sheet bearing page 74 found in the records of Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 1987 received from the Seasons Court ). 8-1987 at 9-15 P. M. near Mallimakapura on Bangalore Chintamani Road between motor cycle No. MEO 9945 and a lorry whose number was not known. (vide Xerox copy of case sheet bearing page 74 found in the records of Criminal Misc. Case No. 149 of 1987 received from the Seasons Court ). It is further noted in that case sheet that injured Narayanaswamy was taken to S. G Hospital on the same day and admitted there and discharged from that Hospital on 23-8-1987 and he was brought to Chaya Nursing Home at 6-00 P. M. on 23-8-1987 by his brother Dr. Dinakar and on examination it was found that he had sustained the following injuries: (1) Fracture of right Pibula: (2) Fracture of lower 113rd right Humerus; (3) Lacerated wound. It had three sutures on the upper lobe and one inch in length; (4) A sutured lacerated wound on the right side of the face at a distance of 1/2 from the angle of the right eye with four sutures 11/2 in length; (5) Abrasion over the nose; (6) Abrasion on right knee; (6) Abrasion over left knee; and (7) Abrasion over left thump and left index finger. (d) Narayanaswamy was treated as an inpatient in Chaya Nursing Home from 23-8-1987 to 18-9- 1987 on which date he was discharged. Thereafter, he was said to be attending the said Nursing Home as an out patient every day from 19. 9. 1987 to 27. 9. 1987 on which date he was again readmitted to that Nursing Home and again discharged from that Nursing Home on 2-10-1987. It is on 25-9-1987 that the statement of Narayanaswamy is said to have been recorded by the Sub- Inspector in Chaya Nursing Home as he was under sedatives throughout the period of his stay in the Nursing Home as in-patient from 23-8-1987 to 18-9-1987 and was not in a position to give his statement and it was only on 25-9-1987 that he was in a position to give his statement as per endorsements made by the Doctors attending on Narayanaswamy in that Nursing Home on the requisition slips given by the Sub-Inspector as submitted by Sri H. M. Thimmarayappa learned Special Public Prosecutor. (e) In the course of the statement recorded on 25-9-1987, Narayanaswamy, who has described himself as the son of Munegowda, aged about 40 years, Member, Bangalore Rural Zilla Parishad KARNATAKA and Agriculturist, Bagur village, Hoskote taluk, is said to have stated that he had been elected as a Member of Zilla Parishad from Sulibele Constituency in the direction held in January, that certain residents of Muthasandra had approached him in the month of July 1987 and represented to him that Aswathappa of Hoskote town (1st petitioner) had obtained a bogus saguvali chit in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 36 of Hasinala which had been given to Hasinala School as a gift under the Bhoodan movement and had not the pahani of that land written in his name and requested him to look into that matter and thereupon he went to the Taluk Office and gave a petition to the Tahsildar and ascertained from the Taluk Office that 8 persons by name (1) Lavi, (2) Anwar. (3) Bhagavantha, (4) Narindrao (5) Pyarejan, (6) Krishnamurthy (1) Muniyappa and (8) Yakub Sheriff, had been given saguvali chits in respect of land bearing Sy. No 36 and on further verification of the copy obtained from the Taluk Office with the village accountant, Narayanaswamy came to know that pahanies of two years had been written in the names of those persons and, therefore, he got a petition given by Anjanappa (deceased) of Begur village as he was a Betterment Committee Member of the School to which the land had been gifted. The purpose for which the petition was got given by Anjanappa was that the land bearing Sy. No. 36 had not been cultivated by anybody and it consisted of shrubs and that Aswathappa (1st petitioner) had obtained saguvali chit in respect of that land in the names of his servants without following the Land Grant Rules. Acting on that petition, the Tahsildar had cancelled the pahani entries and thereupon Aswathappa had gone to Court in August, 1987 for obtaining injunction order and that case was still pending and it was being contested and he (Narayanaswamy) had also given a complaint to Nandagudi Police seeking protection even before Aswathappa went to Court and the police had sent words that 13 persons of Muthasandra should go over to the Police Station in connection with the complaint he had given. In the meanwhile, Chikkappaiahnna of Doddahullur and Jayaramaiah and Aswathappa of Hasihal came to Begur and met Narayanaswamy. At that time, Anjanappa was also present with him. During that meeting, Aswathappa represented to him that they had taken the land and further asked him not to put forth any obstruction in that behalf and he would give Rs. 25,000/-for constructing a building for the School, another Rs. 25,000/- to him (Narayanaswamy) and Rs. 15,000/- to the temple of Mutha. sandra village and thereupon he told Aswathappa that it was not proper on his part to get the land which had been gifted to the School and how can they move about in the village if the land was taken in that clandestine manner and at that stage Chikkappaiahnna intervened and requested Narayanaswamy not to interfere in respect of that land as it had been taken by their own man for which Narayanaswamy did not agree. Thereafter, Aswathappa and Chikkappaiahnna had sent certain persons of Sonnenahalli and Chikka Rullur in a lorry and tempo under the leadership of one Ramchandra of Lakondapahalli on 2 1-8-1987 for removing the shrubs on that land and they were prevented by the residents of Muthasandra village from removing the shrubs in that land and sent them away. It was learnt from Krishnappa of Muthasandra village that Aswathappa and Chikkappaiahnna had sent those persons after getting them drinks on the morning of Saturday the 22nd August 1981. Narayanaswamy telephoned to Chikkappaiah and asked him whether it was proper on his part to send persons of Chikka Hullur and Chikkappaiah replied that he would look into the matter. Thereafter, Narayanaswamy went to Nandagudi Poke Station along with B. N Anjanappa and 13 persons of Muthasandra village and learnt that the Sub Inspector and the Circle Inspector had been to C. T. Gollahalli in connection with a murder case and, therefore, they were waiting in the Police Station awaiting their return. When they were still in the Police Station. Pilla Setty and Venkataramanagowda also came there and told them that Aswathappa, Ramchandra, Driver Srinivasa (2 petitioner) and Kadirappa of Chikkahullur were waiting in Aswathappas lorry bearing No. TMT 2059 at Bailanarasipuro curve near Nandagudi Police Station and he thought that they were awaiting the return of the Sub-Inspector. When they were still in the Police Station. Pilla Setty and Venkataramanagowda also came there and told them that Aswathappa, Ramchandra, Driver Srinivasa (2 petitioner) and Kadirappa of Chikkahullur were waiting in Aswathappas lorry bearing No. TMT 2059 at Bailanarasipuro curve near Nandagudi Police Station and he thought that they were awaiting the return of the Sub-Inspector. The Sub Inspector and Circle Inspector came to the Police Station at about 8-30 or 9-00 P. M. and they were apprised by Narayanaswamy of all that had happened till then in respect of the land and requested him to give protection to the residents of Muthasandra village in order to enable them to go to their work in the factory. Thereafter, Narayanaswamy left the Police Station for his village on his motor cycle No. MEO 9945 with Anjanappa as pillion rider and it was about 9-15 P. M then. When they were coming near Bhimakkanahalli Gate on Nandagudi-Hoskote Road on the motor cycle a lorry came from behind very close to his motor cycle and he was asked by Anjanappa to take the motor cycle to a side as Aswathappas lorry was coming towards the motor cycle and thereupon he applied brakes and swerved the motor cycle to a side and turned back and saw Aswathappa sitting in the cabin of the lorry which was driven by Srinivasa and Aswathappa asked driver Srinivasa to drive the lorry against his motor cycle and at that time he also saw Ramchandra and Kadirappa sitting in the cabin of the lorry on the left side of Aswathappa and at that stage the lorry dashed against his motor cycle from behind and as a result he was thrown off into a ditch and lost consciousness and be did not know what happened thereafter. He was suffering from severe pain till then and his memory power was also not good. According to him, it was Aswathappa with the help of his men who had caused the death of Anjanappa and injuries to him in order to knock off the land worth about Rs. 3 lakhs and, therefore, necessary action may be taken against them. (f) It is on the basis of the said statement of Narayanaswamy that the offences for which Crime No. 143 of 1987 was originally registered on 23. 8. 3 lakhs and, therefore, necessary action may be taken against them. (f) It is on the basis of the said statement of Narayanaswamy that the offences for which Crime No. 143 of 1987 was originally registered on 23. 8. 1977 for the above mentioned offences were altered to heinous offences under Sections 302 and 307, I. P. C. by showing the petitioners, Kaddirappa and one other person as accused. Further investigation of the case was taken up by the Circle Inspector of Police. But, final report is yet to be submitted although more than one year and two months have elapsed. (g) In view of this attered circumstance, the petitioners filed an application under Section 438 of the Code praying for anticipatory bail on the ground that they were apprehending their arrest in Crime No. 143 of 1987, although they were innocent of the offences and they bad been falsely implicated at the instance of their political opponents by securing the statement of the above nature from Narayanaswamy 33 days after the motor accident in which Anjanappa died and Narayanaswamy had sustained some injuries. The said prayar of the petitioners was stoutly opposed by the State by filing a detailed objection statement. (h) After securing the necessary records relating to the treatment of Narayanaswamy in the S. O. Hospital in the first instance and then in Chaya Nursing Home and bearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned defence counsel on 4 consecutive dates from 16-10-1987 to 20- 10-1987 that the learned Sessions Judge has passed the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 2 and dismissing the prayar of petitioner 3 on the ground that he had already been arrested by the police. It is the correctness and legality of that order that is questioned in this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code on several grounds set out in the petition. ( 5 ) SRI H. M. Thimmarayappa, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya, learned defence counsel have taken me through all the relevant materials available in the records and have also placed reliance on a few decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in which the principles governing grant or refusal of anticipatory bail are enunciated. ( 5 ) SRI H. M. Thimmarayappa, learned Special Public Prosecutor and Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya, learned defence counsel have taken me through all the relevant materials available in the records and have also placed reliance on a few decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court in which the principles governing grant or refusal of anticipatory bail are enunciated. ( 6 ) THE sole point that arises for determination in this petition in the light of the arguments submitted by the learned counsel on both sides is: whether the learned Sessions Judge has acted improperly, illegally and prejudicially in granting anticipatory bail to petitioners 1 and 2, although they are alleged to have committed offences under Sections 302 and 307, I P. C. ( 7 ) THE learned Special Public Prosecutor took strong exception to some of the observations made by the learned Sessions Judge in the course of his order expressing his opinion on the merits of the case which is still in the process of investigation. A reading of the order would no doubt give some scope for such a criticism. In my view, the learned Sessions Judge should have refrained himself from making observations which are susceptible of giving such an impression as the case is likely to come up before him for trial if eventually a charge sheet is filed against the petitioners and two others for offences under Sections 302 and 307, I. P. C. Therefore, one has to be necessarily cautious in dealing with a case of this type which is said to involve political overtones as contended by Sri C. H. Hanumantharaya. According to him, the alleged statement of Narayanaswamy said to have been recorded in Chaya Nursing Home on 25-9. 1987 after he was discharged from that Nursing Home on 19-9-1987 is brought into existence by the political opponents of the 1st petitioner after considerable deliberation and, therefore, it would not be safe to place any reliance on that statement at this stage. 1987 after he was discharged from that Nursing Home on 19-9-1987 is brought into existence by the political opponents of the 1st petitioner after considerable deliberation and, therefore, it would not be safe to place any reliance on that statement at this stage. He pin pointedly urged with reference to the copies of the case sheet of the S. O. Hospital and Chaya Nursing Home available in the records that except for a couple of minutes on the night of 22/23-8-1987, Narayanaswamy was conscious and his general condition was good and, therefore, nothing prevented the police from recording his statement when he was in S. O. Hospital throughout the day on 23-8-1987 and even after he was admitted to Chaya Nursing Home at 6-04 P. M. on 23-8-1987 inasmuch as it is mentioned in the case sheet of Narayanaswamy that right from 25-8-1987 to 16-9-1987 his general condition was better; that his temperature, respiratory and pulse were normal and nothing abnormal was detected and, therefore, it can be easily inferred that the police officer incharge of investigation was marking for time at the instance of powers that be in order to record the statement of Narayanaswamy in a manner convenient to the political opponents of the 1st petitioner in order to involve him in a serious offence. On the other band, Sri H. M. Thimmarayappa argued that the Doctors attending on Narayanaswamy in Chaya Nursing Home have endorsed on the requisition slips given by Subinspector that Narayanaswamy was on sedatives throughout his stay as in-patient in Chaya Nursing Home from 23-8-87 till 18-9-1987 and he was not in a fit condition to give his statement during that period, that there are medical records to show that even after he was discharged from Chaya Nursing Home on 18-9-1987 be was visiting the Nursing Home every day as out-patient from 19-9-1987 to 27-9-1987 and he was again readmitted to that Nursing Home on 27-9-1987 and discharged on 2-10-1987 and as such his statement recorded on 25-9-1987 cannot be dubbed as a got-up one and there is no material to hold that the hospital records are fabricated. While admitting that Dr. Dinkar is the younger brother of Narayanaswamy, Sri Thimmarayappa refuted the statement of Sri Hanumantharaya that Dr. While admitting that Dr. Dinkar is the younger brother of Narayanaswamy, Sri Thimmarayappa refuted the statement of Sri Hanumantharaya that Dr. Dinakar was working in S. G. Hospital and he had for reasons best known to him thought it fit to get his elder brother Narayanaswamy discharged from that hospital and to admit him to Chaya Nursing Home. He further pointed out that it is entered in the case sheet of S. G. Hospital dated 22-8. 1987 that Narayanaswamy was admitted by one Peer Basha and the case sheet of that date is fabricated by somebody by making a writing which reads as History as given by patient above the writing alleged to have been hit by a vehicle near Mallimakapura, Hoskote, at about 9-30 P. M. on 22. 8. 1987 and again by writing the word No before the words 103s of consciousness etc. ( 8 ) IN my view, it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the above mentioned rival submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides as the case is still in the process of investigation. Suffice it to say for the present that Crime No. 143 of 1987 is registered on 23-8-1987 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A, I. P. C. and Section 89 of the Act on the basis of the written complaint of Muniswamappa to which reference is already made above and it is only 33 days thereafter that the statement of Narayanaswamy is recorded and the offences are altered to heinous offences under Sections 302 and 307, I. P. C. In the circumstances, whether the statement of Narayanaswamy recorded on 25-9. 1987 can be safely relied upon is a matter which has to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage and it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion on that aspect at this stage. 1987 can be safely relied upon is a matter which has to be considered by the trial Court at the appropriate stage and it would not be proper for this Court to express any opinion on that aspect at this stage. In my view, the case would have taken a different complexion altogether if the case had been registered in the first instance for offences under Sections 602 and 307, I. P. C. ( 9 ) IN my view, the important aspects which cannot be lost sight of at this stage are (a) the concerned police have not yet submitted final report in Crime No. 143 of 1987 although more than one year and two months have elapsed, (b) the learned Sessions Judge has thought it proper to exercise the discretion vested in him under Section 438 of the Code in granting anticipatory bail to the petitioners by imposing on them the above mentioned three conditions; (c) although nearly one year has elapsed since the passing of the impugned order, the prosecution has not brought to the notice of the Sessions Judge or this Court that the petitioners have in any way violated the conditions imposed on them and have misused the liberty granted to them by virtue of that order; and (d) the other two accused against whom more or less same allegations except motive are made are released on bail by the Sessions Judge and the State has not made any grievance about it so far. ( 10 ) THE scope and ambit of Section 438 of the Code have been succinctly considered by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the leading case of Gurbaksh Singh and another v. the State of Punjab. It is observed at page 1640 of the said decision thus: The legislature conferred a wide discretion on the High Court and the Court of Session to grant anticipatory bail because it evidently felt, firstly, that it would be difficult to enumerate the conditions under which anticipatory bail should or should not be granted and secondly, because the intention was to allow the higher courts in the echelon a somewhat free hand in the grant of relief in the nature of anticipatory bail. That is why, departing from the terms of Sections 437 and 439, Section 438 (1) uses the language that the High Court or the Court of Session may, if it thinks fit direct that the applicant be released on bail. Subsection (2) of Section 438 is a further and clearer manifestation of the same legislative intent to confer a wide discretionary power to grant anticipatory bail. It provides that the High Court or the Court of Session, while issuing a direction for the grant of anticipatory 1. AIR 1980 SC 1632 . Bail, may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including the conditions which are set out in Clauses (i) to (iv) of sub-section (2 ). It is observed in the said decision that wide and explicit words used in Section 438 must be given their full effect and the beneficient provision contained in Section 438 must be saved, no jettisoned. A reference is invariably made to the observations made in this decision in subsequent decisions rendered by the Honble Supreme Court and other High Courts including this Court. However, Sri Thimmarayappa placed strong reliance on a few subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. He drew my attention to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another. It is a very short decision to which their Lordships have expresised the opinion that anticipatory bail should not have been granted in the murder case when the investigation was still incomplete and the proper course to adopt was to leave it to the trial Court to do the needful if and when the person concerned was arrested in the light of the record available at that point of time. With the said observation, the order passed by the High Court is set aside on the point of principle without making any observation one way or the other on the merits of the case. With the said observation, the order passed by the High Court is set aside on the point of principle without making any observation one way or the other on the merits of the case. As a matter of fact, it was contended by the learned counsel for the prosecution on the strength of Kiran Devis case in the case of R. L. Jalappa v. Delhi Police Establishment that anticipatory bail should not be granted in murder case when investigation w is still incomplete, But, this Court has taken the view that the Supreme Court itself had declared that the decision of a Constitution Bench and/or larger Bench will be binding on High Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India in preference to latter decision of a smaller Bench if they are irreconcilable and it is further observed that the ratio enunciated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Gurbaksh Singh's case in juxtaposition that freedom of an individual and the presumption of innocence, still held the field. In that case, the order of the Sessions Judge refusing anticipatory bail to the petitioner is set aside and 2 1988 SCC (Cr1.) 106. 3. ILR 1988 Karn. 1613. he is granted anticipatory bail by imposing on him certain conditions. ( 11 ) THE next decision on which reliance was placed by Sri Thimmarayappa is that of Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others in which it is observed that it is not prudent for High Court to grant anticipatory bail in dowry death cases. Therefore, I am of the vie w that the said decision is inapplicable to the facts of the case on band. ( 12 ) THE other case on which strong reliance was placed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor is reported in Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan in which their Lordships have observed that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress and in such a case the Supreme Court bas no option but to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail. But the said observations are made in the context of the facts of that case set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision. But the said observations are made in the context of the facts of that case set out in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said decision. ( 13 ) ON the other hand, Sri Hanumantbaraya placed reliance on a few decisions of the Supreme Court. They are: The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi in which it is observed in paragraph 13 at page 965 thus: 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. Similar view is expressed by the Supreme Court in Bhagirath Singh Judeja v. State of 4. AIR 1987 SC 717. 5. AIR 1985 SC 969 . 6. AIR 1978 SC 961 . Gujarat7, wherein it is observed in paragraph 6 at page 373 thus: Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of the bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well- settled by a catena of decisions of this Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available in his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with TI In my view, the said observations are quite relevant in this case, although those observations were made in the context of the right of the Court to cancel bail granted to an accused under Sections 437 and 439 of the Code and not under Section 438 of the Code. ( 14 ) RELIANCE was placed by Sri Hanumantharaya on another decision of this Court in Narayanappa and others v. State of Karnataka in which extensive reference is made to the observation made in Gurbaksh Singh's case (supra) and anticipatory bail is granted by the High Court to one of the accused by name N. M. Muniyappa involved in a murder case with the observation that the facts and circumstances of each case will govern the exercise of judicial discretion in granting or refusing anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code. ( 15 ) APPLYING the observations made in the above mentioned decisions cited on both sides to the facts of the case on hand, I am of the view that this is not a proper case in which the State has made out any good ground for cancelling the relief of anticipatory bail granted to the petitioners by the learned Sessions Judge especially after a lapse of nearly one year and that too in the absence of any material to hold that the petitioners have not complied with the conditions imposed on them by the Sessions Judge in his order and there is no material to hold that they have misused the liberty granted to them. 7. AIR 1984 SC 312. 8. 1981 (2) Kar. LB. ( 16 ) IN the result, therefore, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed