Judgment 1. In this case the petitioner prays for cancellation of bail granted to opposite parties under S.439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the learned Sessions Judge of Vaishali at Hajipur in Cr. Misc. Nos. 224/89, 274/89 by an order dated 2-5-89 in Jurawanpur P.S. Case No. 9 dated 14-3-89 bearing G. R. Case No. 458/89 under, Ss.147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 447, 337, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under S.27 of the Arms Act for the murder of Upendra Singh, cousin of the informant. 2. Mr. Rash Bihari Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of learned Sessions Judge granting ball to the opposite parties on 2-5-89 clearly shows that the learned Judge found that according to the first information report Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwa Nath Singh had fired at the deceased. The other accused persons had also resorted to firing. A large number of pellet injuries were found in the post-mortem examination. Learned Sessions Judge has stated that in the first information report two persons had been specifically named to have fired gunshots causing injuries to the deceased but in course of investigation at least "half of a dozen of the accused have been alleged specifically inflicted injuries on the specific part of the body." 3. Mr. Rash Bihari Singh further submitted that the opposite parties are threatening the witnesses and trying to tamper with the evidence. They have also threatened that three brothers of the informant would be killed. A Sanha bearing No. 128 dated 9-5-89 was lodged with Jurawanpur police station of Vaishali district for proper action against the opposite parties. According to Mr. Singh, the first information report clearly says that Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwanath Singh had given fatal gun shots on the deceased which is proved by the post-mortem report also, though it is said that others also had fired at the deceased. It was wrong on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to say that it was difficult to notice and say with precision as to which shot struck the deceased. According to him, it was an error of fact and the bail was wrongly granted to the opposite parties including these two persons specifically. 4. It was wrong on the part of the learned Sessions Judge to say that it was difficult to notice and say with precision as to which shot struck the deceased. According to him, it was an error of fact and the bail was wrongly granted to the opposite parties including these two persons specifically. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Sanna referred to above goes to show that the opposite parties are trying to tamper with the evidence. Hence, at least these two persons Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwanath Singh are not entitled to remain on bail. 5. Mr. Braj Kishore Prasad, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties submitted that it is established law that the consideration of cancelling the bail is different from the consideration for granting the bail. The bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge in its discretionary power cannot be cancelled unless there be evidence to show that the opposite parties are likely to abscond or they are trying to tamper with the evidence or investigation. According to Mr. Prasad simply lodging of Sanha is not enough for cancelling the bail already granted by the learned Sessions Judge. The said Judge had already noted that besides Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwanath Singh, others had also fired at the deceased, though in the first information report it is said that only these two persons had fired but the prosecution developed this story during the investigation that half a dozen persons had also fired. As such, there is no ground for the informant or prosecution to say that the bail of the opposite parties be cancelled. 6. Sanjay Gandhis case reported in, AIR 1978 SC 961 : (1978 Cri LJ 952), is the leading case in this connection. A catena of decisions is available on this point stating that the bail may be cancelled if the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or trying to jump the bail. The order under S.439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be passed on the following grounds :- 1. When the accused found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial. 2. When the person on bail commits similar offence or any henious offence during the period of bail. 3. The order under S.439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be passed on the following grounds :- 1. When the accused found tampering with the evidence either during the investigation or during the trial. 2. When the person on bail commits similar offence or any henious offence during the period of bail. 3. When the accused has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account. 4. When the offence so committed by the accused, that had created serious law and order problem in the society and accused had become a hazard on the peaceful living of the people. 5. If the High Court finds that the lower Court granting bail has exercised its judicial power wrongly. 6. If the High Court or Sessions Courts find that the accused has misused the privilege of bail. 7. If the life of the accused itself be in danger, (cases reported in 1952 Cri LJ 213 : (AIR 1951 Madras 1042), AIR 1978 SC 179 : (1978 Cri LJ 129), AIR 1958 SC 376 : (1958 Cri LJ 701), 1959 Cri LJ 1453 : ( AIR 1959 Manipur 47 ), (1932) 33 Cri LJ 335 : (AIR 1932 Lahore 433), 1986 Cri LJ 1851 (Cal) and (1987) 2 SCC 684 : (1987 Cri LJ 1872) relied upon). 7. The impugned order shows that the learned Sessions Judge knew that as per the first information report Damodar Singh and Bhulu alias Bishwa Nath Singh had fired on the deceased causing his death. It was also stated that others accused persons had also fired at the deceased, even then the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to grant bail to them. There is only one document against the opposite parties and that is a Sanha lodged against them by the petitioner before the police on 11-5-89 disclosing that the accused were threatening the witnesses. The police did not enquire into the Sanha nor did the police inform the Court about it. It is not known if the police found any substance in the threat given by the opposite parties to the informant. It is already stated above that the consideration for cancellation of bail is different from the consideration of granting the bail and the bail granted should not be ordinarily cancelled unless the various facts requiring such cancellation are brought to the notice of the Court enumerated above. 8. It is already stated above that the consideration for cancellation of bail is different from the consideration of granting the bail and the bail granted should not be ordinarily cancelled unless the various facts requiring such cancellation are brought to the notice of the Court enumerated above. 8. I find that the evidence relied on by the petitioner is not enough for cancellation of bail by this Court. As such, in the absence of sufficient material on the record against the opposite parties, it is not desirable to cancel their bail. Accordingly the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed