JUDGMENT (ORAL) A.D. Mane, J. - This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted in favour of the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on May 31. 1990. 2. A crime at Sr. No. Part V 173/1990 was registered on May 4, 1990 with Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The incident appears to have taken place at about 8.45 P.M. on that day in Ganesh Colony, Jalgaon City. It has been alleged that the present respondents alongwith two others who are shown absconding accused, assaulted the deceased Subhash who was 19 years old with means of knife and gupti. Next, it appears that on May 31, 1990 the respondents have applied for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalgaon inter-alia stating that they have reason to believe that they are likely to be arrested falsely in the crime on account of personal enmity with the deceased. In this context, it has been stated that the name of the respondent No.2 is not disclosed as one of the assailants. It has also been stated that the respondent No.1 is M.Sc. of Pune University and was working as Physical Education Instructor in an Educational Institution. The respondent No.2 is a Commerce graduate of the Pune University, who has passed his examination with distinction and has been selected for Police training course for undergoing the course of Police Sub Inspector. Therefore, the respondents apprehended that they would be arrested in above crime by reason of personal enmity by their rivals, which will result into spoiling of their career. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, despite the objections, granted the anticipatory bail on certain conditions. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has gone through the material placed before him which has been collected at that stage of proceeding by way of investigation by the police. On considering the statements of witnesses the learned trial Judge has observed that the other witnesses have stated in their statement before police that the names of the assailants were given to them by police. On considering the statements of witnesses the learned trial Judge has observed that the other witnesses have stated in their statement before police that the names of the assailants were given to them by police. In absence of any evidence that the respondents were likely to abscond or that they were likely to tamper with the evidence of witnesses examined by the police, the learn trial Judge took the view that the anticipatory bail can be granted on condition that they shall not leave the jurisdiction of the court unless prior permission is obtained, and that they should not indulge in tampering with the prosecution evidence in any manner, and that they shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer as and when their presence is sought for the purpose of investigation. 4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has relied upon certain circumstances set in the application for cancellation of the anticipatory bail namely that the respondents are known as gundas in Jalgaon town, that nine criminal cases are pending against them, that there are two eye witnesses Nand kishore and Vilas who have seen the incident and mentioned the names of the respondents as some of the assailants of the deceased. In this context, emphasis is led on the statement of witnesses, one of them has stated that one of the accused namely - Chandrakant delt threats to the residents of Ganesh Colony that if anybody will disclose the incident he would be killed by them. Lastly, it has been contended that the respondents were absconding with incriminating articles and therefore, incriminating articles requires to be seized from their possession and as such, enlargement of the respondents on bail would be prejudicial to the investigation of the case. Shri Wagh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of the application relied upon observations of Their Lordships in case of Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan.1, and to quote: "When a person is accused of an offence of murder...the Court has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. Status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. When the power under S. 438, Cr. Status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the Court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. When the power under S. 438, Cr. P.C. was exercised sub silentio as to reasons or on considerations irrelevant or not germane to the determination" 5. It cannot be denied 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. In the first place, there is no evidence to show that the respondents have absconded from the date of incident till they filed their application on May 31, 1990 for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below. There is also nothing to show that any reply was filed to the application of the respondents before the Court below, opposing the application on these grounds. Equally important is the circumstance that it is nowhere alleged either in the application or in the supplementary affidavit on behalf of the prosecution that the respondents have mis-used their liberty by not complying with the conditions imposed upon them by the Court below. The present application though filed on June 14, 1990 has come up for hearing today after a lapse of six months and no sincere attempt appears to have been made to get the application heard earlier. 6. What is, now, therefore, emphasised by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in support of the application is the only ground that investigating agency has yet to recover the incriminating article namely, weapon of assault and enlargement of the respondents on bail further will be prejudicial to the investigation of the case, but at the same time it has been submitted that virtually investigation is over except the aforesaid recovery of article of assault. 7. Even if it is said that the learned Judge of the court below has failed to take into account the grave nature of the offence alleged against the respondents, yet the aforesaid factors in my opinion, cannot be overlooked while considering the application for cancellation of bail. 7. Even if it is said that the learned Judge of the court below has failed to take into account the grave nature of the offence alleged against the respondents, yet the aforesaid factors in my opinion, cannot be overlooked while considering the application for cancellation of bail. Moreover, sole ground that investigating agency has yet to recover the weapon of assault, will not be a sufficient ground to cancel the bail which has been granted in favour of the respondents. In this context, regard may be had to the decision in case of The State through Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi2. Their Lordships have observed that: “ 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 necessary 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 conductive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial…" In case of Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab3 the Supreme Court had observed that. “...it cannot also be said that anticipatory bail should be refused if a legitimate case for the remand of the offender to the police custody under S. 167(2) is made out by the investigating agency..." In these circumstances, I do not find any strong ground for cancellation of bail. 8. Apart from that, Shri Wagh, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that fresh conditions must be imposed upon the respondents as condition precedent for grant of anticipatory bail by the High Court. I heard Shri Bora, the learned Counsel for the respondents. He has no objection to following conditions: (a) The respondents shall report to Zilla Peth Police Station, Jalgaon every day between 9 A.M. and 11 A.M. for the period from 19-11-1990 to 3-12-1990. (b) That the respondents shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogations and when required. (c) That the respondents shall not leave the city Jalgaon without prior permission of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon till 31st December, 1990. (b) That the respondents shall make themselves available to the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogations and when required. (c) That the respondents shall not leave the city Jalgaon without prior permission of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon till 31st December, 1990. (d) In the event of failure of the respondents to comply with any of these conditions anticipatory bail granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall stands cancelled. 9. In the result, subject to the modifications of the conditions as aforesaid, the application stands rejected. Application rejected. 1. A.I.R 1985 S.C. 969. 2. A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 961. 3. A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1632.