D. P. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) BAIKUNTHANATH Dalai, the informant in G. R. Case No. 260 of 1989 of the court of the S. D. J. M. , Nayagarh has filed these two petitions under Sections 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure ('cr P. C. ' for short) assailing the orders of the Sessions Judge, Puri admitting the accused opp. parties to bail. Since the petitions relate to the same criminal case and the contentions raised by the petitioner in both the cases are similar, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this order. ( 2 ) ON the First Information Report lodged by the petitioner in Sarankul Police Station on 1-8-89 G. R. Case No. 260 of 1989 was initiated against the opp. parties and some others under Sections 147/ 148/326/336/324/302/149, I. P. C. and Sections 25 (a)/ 27 of the Arms Act. The case of the prosecution, shortly stated, was that since two years prior to the occurrence there was party faction in the village; while the petitioner and the deceased Arjuna Jena were in the minority group the accused persons belonged to the majority group. On 1-8-89 at about 6-30 a. m. while the petitioner came out of his house to the village road (Danda) he saw Arjuna Jena having a wash near the tube-well. The accused opp. parties along with others being armed with deadly weapons like Farsa, swords, Katari, knives, bombs, guns and lathis came there, caught hold of Arjuna Jena and severely assaulted him with the weapons held by them; they also exploded bombs and fired from the guns to scare away the villagers who tried to come to the rescue of Arjuna Jena. The injured Arjuna Jena was shifted to the Hospital where he expired at 9 p. m. on the same day. The FIR was lodged as about 9 a. m. and the Investigating Officer who went to the spot at 9. 30 a. m. on the next day found a pool of blood at the place of occurrence on the village Danda. The FIR was lodged as about 9 a. m. and the Investigating Officer who went to the spot at 9. 30 a. m. on the next day found a pool of blood at the place of occurrence on the village Danda. ( 3 ) IT appears from the records received from the Court of the Sessions Judge, Puri that different batches of accused persons filed applications from time to time for being released on bail which were disposed of by the court by different orders. Therefore it will be convenient to discuss the orders chronologically. ( 4 ) BY order dated 15-9-89 the learned Sessions Judge disposed of the two applications registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 1989 and Criminal Misc. Case No. 731 of 1989. Though from the cause title in the certified copy of the order only five accused persons are mentioned as petitioners, it appears from the records that he dealt with the prayer for bail of seven accused persons. The applicants in Criminal Misc. Case No. 619 of 1989 were Bula alias Digamber Jena, Laxman Pal, Gobardhan Parida, Murali Pradhan and Hadibandhu Pradhan and those in Criminal Misc. Case No. 731 of 1989 were Ananda Chandra Parida and Dasa Pala alias Dalai. While rejecting the prayer of all the applicants the Sessions Judge observed as follows :". ADMITTEDLY all these petitioners were present and attacked the deceased. There is direct evidence against the petitioner Bula alias Digambar Jena that he assaulted the deceased with a lathi on his hand while others were assaulting him with Katari and Farsa and knives. The post-mortem report is not yet received and the case diary is not available. The action of the petitioners created panic in the locality as they exploded bombs and also fired from the guns to scare away the villagers and did not allow them to save the life of the deceased who was assaulted by the other accused persons. So the intention of the petitioners is clear that they formed an unlawful assembly with common intention to cause the death of the deceased. The main culprits are absconding and the investigation is still under progress. Under these circumstances, I think this is not a fit case to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. ". So the intention of the petitioners is clear that they formed an unlawful assembly with common intention to cause the death of the deceased. The main culprits are absconding and the investigation is still under progress. Under these circumstances, I think this is not a fit case to release the petitioners on bail at this stage. ". Shortly thereafter the petitioners in Criminal Misc Case No. 619 of 1989 and three others, namely, Dasa Pala alias Dalai, Ananda Chandra Panida and Maheswar Pradhan filed application for being released on bail which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 781/22 of 1989. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 21-9-89 disposed of the application with the direction that the petitioners 1 to 7 in the case be released on bail. The prayer of petitioner No. 8 Maheswar Pradhan for bail was rejected. He observed in the order :". ON the other hand there is evidence that the deceased was assaulted by Ramesh Behera, Chandramani Parida, Dibyasingha Paikara with Farsa, Chiranjib Parida with Katari on the left palm, Raghu Parida with sword on the right leg and right arm, Bharat Behera with the Katari on the right thigh and Digambar Jena with lathi on the right hand of the deceased. Admittedly, as found from the post-mortem report as well as from the injury report, it is seen that all the injuries inflicted on the deceased were mostly on the legs, thigh and on the arms. There was no fatal injury on the hand. The contention of the Addl. P. P. that the main assailants are still absconding and are not yet apprehended and that they were threatening to the other members of the informant party is no ground for consideration of the bail petition of the present petitioners. A total number of 30 accused persons could not have caused only 8 to 9 injuries on the deceased and that too on only legs and hands. The head injury is simple and is not at all fatal as found from the post mortem report. Since there is no direct evidence of assaulting the deceased against petitioners Nos. 1 to 7, I am inclined to release them on bail. "within seven days thereafter another application for bail was filed on behalf of forteen accused persons, viz. The head injury is simple and is not at all fatal as found from the post mortem report. Since there is no direct evidence of assaulting the deceased against petitioners Nos. 1 to 7, I am inclined to release them on bail. "within seven days thereafter another application for bail was filed on behalf of forteen accused persons, viz. , Prafulla Jena, Ramesh Behera, Dasarathi Behara, Harihar Naik, Kasi Parida, Babu alias Gokulananda Pradhan, Jagannath alias Jaguli Pradhan, Binayak Samantara, Bishnu Pala, Bharats alias Huria Behera, Dibyasingha Palkara, Chandramani Parida, Raghu Parida and Chiranjibi Parida which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 8ll of 1989. The said application was disposed of by order dated 27-9-89 rejecting the prayer for bail of petitioner No. 6 Babu alias Gokulananda Pradhan, petitioner No. 10 Bharat alias Huria Behera, petitioner No. 11 Dibyasingha Paikara, petitioner No. 12 Chandramani Parida, petitioner No. 13 Raghu Parida and petitioner No. 14 Chiranjibi Parida; the order shows that all other petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 8ll of 1989 and the 14 petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 816 of 1989 were released on bail. The certified copy of the order does not show the names of the petitioners in Criminal Misc. Case No. 816 of 1989 nor does the discussion in the order clearly spell out anything about them. The orders passed on 21-9-89 and 27-9-89 are under challenge in Criminal Misc. Case No. 985 of 1989. The six applicants whose prayer for bail was rejected by the order dated 27-9-89 filed another application for bail (Criminal Misc. Case No. 847/ 89) which was disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge by order dated 18-10-89. All the applicants were admitted to bail. It was observed in the order :"in the dying declaration the deceased named Ramesh Behera with Farsa, Jaga Parida with a sword, Raghu Parida with a Khanda assaulted him and Bula Jena assaulted him with a lath), Huria Behera threw a bomb and Babu Pradhan also threw a bomb whereas the statements of the eye witnesses are different. The petitioners Chandramani Parida, Dibysingha Paikara and Chiranjibi Parida were not at all named as his assailants by the deceased. Amongst the person named, Ramesh Behera, Jaga Parida, Bula Jena were already released on bail as there was no sufficient evidence against them. The petitioners Chandramani Parida, Dibysingha Paikara and Chiranjibi Parida were not at all named as his assailants by the deceased. Amongst the person named, Ramesh Behera, Jaga Parida, Bula Jena were already released on bail as there was no sufficient evidence against them. From the statements of the witnesses, it is seen that the petitioner Huria Behera gave a blow with a Katari on the right thigh of the deceased and also threw some bombs. The petitioner Dibyasingh Paikara gave Farsa blow on the left arm and Chandramani Parida with a sword assaulted on the left thigh and Raghu Parida gave blow with a Kati on the left hand and left leg. Most of the injuries on the deceased were on the legs and hands only. This shows that the petitioners had no intention to kill him but only to leave him with Assaults. Moreover, when the deceased did not name the petitioners Chandramani Parida and Dibyasingha Paikara and Chiranjibi Parida and the blows given by them as per the statements of the witnesses are not on the head or on the neck or on the chest of the deceased and similarly the other petitioners also did not assault the deceased on the vital parts of the body and as the investigation is almost completed, the petitioners be released on bail of Rs. 5000/ - with one surety each for the like amount to the satisfaction of this Court. ". This order is under challenge in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1057 of 1989. ( 5 ) SHRI S. K. Padhi appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge admitting the accused opp. parties to bail are palpably and manifestly illegal, erroneous and improper and they should not be allowed to stand. ( 6 ) SHRI D. P. Dhai appearing for the accused-opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that since there is no allegation that the opp. parties have misutilised their liberty after being admitted to bail and the prosecution has not come up with any allegation that it is facing difficulty in investigation / trial of the case on account of the opp. parties being at large, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri should not be interfered with. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that in the present case there is no allegation that the accused opp. parties being at large, the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri should not be interfered with. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that in the present case there is no allegation that the accused opp. parties have committed any overt act after they were admitted to bail. The question therefore is whether in such a case the order granting bail can be cancelled under S. 439 (2) Cr. P. C. No doubt, while considering an application for cancellation of bail the Court ordinarily looks for some supervening circumstances indicating that the accused has misutilised the liberty granted to him by being admitted to bail, but that is neither a statutory sine qua non nor a rule of universal application. The position has to be taken as well settled that bail granted illegally or improperly by a wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion can be cancelled even if there is absence of supervening circumstances against the accused after grant of bail. It is also a well accepted principle that successive applications for bail by the same accused should not be entertained unless the Court is satisfied that in the meantime there has been a material change in the circumstances which warrants reconsideration of the matter. ( 8 ) ON Perusal of the different orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge from time to time, relevant portions of which have been quoted/discussed earlier, it is clear that he has entertained and allowed successive applications for bail without indicating any material change in circumstances completely ignoring the settled position of law as indicated above; has passed apparently contradictory orders within a fairly short span of time between 15-9-89 and 18- 10-89 and has also tried to sift the materials with a view to ascertain the merits of the prosecution case against the accused opp. parties, which, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : (1980 Cri LJ 426) and in the case of Chhaila Pradhan v. Banshidhar Pradhan, reported in (1986) 62 Cut LT 699 (supra), is not proper approach while considering an application for bail. parties, which, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote reported in AIR 1980 SC 785 : (1980 Cri LJ 426) and in the case of Chhaila Pradhan v. Banshidhar Pradhan, reported in (1986) 62 Cut LT 699 (supra), is not proper approach while considering an application for bail. It also appears from the discussions in the orders that the learned Sessions Judge has approached the matter differently while passing the orders from time to time; in one order he considers the circumstance like many of the accused persons being still at large and tension prevailing in the area as relevant circumstance while in another order he outright rejects similar circumstances as irrelevant. The orders clearly reveal that irrelevant matters were taken into consideration and the judicial discretion vested in him was exercised illegally and arbitrarily. On giving my anxious consideration to the matter, I am of the view that if the orders granting bail to the accused opp. parties are allowed to stand, it would amount to abuse of the process of the court and occasion failure of justice. I am satisfied that this is a fit case where bail granted to the accused-opp. parties should be cancelled under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE applications are therefore allowed and the orders passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Puri admitting the accused opp. parties to bail are hereby quashed and set aside. They are directed to surrender before the trial court immediately. Petition allowed.