Judgment : PRATAP SINGH, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONS under section 439 (2) read with section 482, Criminal Procedure Code, praying for cancellation of the bail granted to Mohammed Ibrahim and Abdul Hameed, respectively in Cr1. M. P. Nos. 485 and 486 of 1991 respectively by the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of the applications. The allegations in it are briefly as follows:he is the informant of the double murder case in Crime No. 668/90 of second respondent police station. One of the deceased Raj Mohammed is his nephew. The first respondent had entered into a criminal conspiracy to murder his son Raj Mohammed arid another Raj Mohammed by engaging several persons due to prior enmity. While the deceased were going on a motor cycle, they were hit by the lorry engaged by the first respondent. After the motor cycle was hit, the injured were attacked with iron rods and murdered. The first respondent moved for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai and it was granted. On that, he moved the High Court in Cr1. M. P. No. 1251/91 for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai. This court cancelled the anticipatory bail. The first respondent surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate on 29. 4. 1991. He moved for bail on 2. 5. 1991 before the Sessions Judge, it was dismissed. Then again, he moved before the Sessions Judge on 6. 5. 1991. Even though there was no change of circumstances, the Sessions Judge had allowed the petition. The Sessions Judge had not taken into consideration, the observations made by this Court while cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered the fact that first respondent violated the conditions of anticipatory bail granted to him. The entire case rests on circumstantial evidence. The first respondent and his men are highly influential persons. Already witnesses had complained about the threats made by accused persons. One of the accused had already left India. The investigation is not yet over. Hence the petition. ( 3 ) THE affidavit filed by the petitioner in Cr1. O. P. 4565/91 is similar. In both the petitions, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit. The first respondent in Cr1. O. P. No. 4565191 has filed counter affidavit. One of the accused had already left India. The investigation is not yet over. Hence the petition. ( 3 ) THE affidavit filed by the petitioner in Cr1. O. P. 4565/91 is similar. In both the petitions, the first respondent has filed counter affidavit. The first respondent in Cr1. O. P. No. 4565191 has filed counter affidavit. He refuted the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the application. ( 4 ) MR. R. A. Dhanasekaran, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, contends that the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the petition for bail on 2. 5. 1991 in Cr1. M. P. 455191 and within four days, another petition was filed on 6. 5. 1991 and on 7. 5. 1991, the learned Sessions Judge has passed an order allowing the petition granting bail and there was no change of circumstance whatsoever between these five days. He would further contend that the observations made by the High Court in Cr1. M. P. 1251/91 and connected petition were not taken into account by the learned Sessions Judge and he had erroneously granted bail. He would further contend that even after the cancellation of the anticipatory bail by the High Court, first respondents had not surrendered before the Magistrate and they had neither complied with the conditions laid down by the learned Sessions Judge, while granting anticipatory bail and these circumstances should have been taken into account and bail ought to have been refused. Per contra. Mr. M. Karpagavinayagam, the learned counsel for the first respondent contends that there was change of circumstance between 2. 5. 1991 and 5. 9. 1991 in the sense that five days had passed in between and there must have been progress in the investigation. He further contends that observations made by the High Court was with regard to the anticipatory bail and in para 24 of the order, the High Court itself has stated that first respondent is at liberty to file bail petition and in that case the learned Sessions Judge will consider them on merits without in any way being influenced by the observations made in that order. He further contends that after the High Court had passed order cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Judge, the first respondent is not under obligation to comply with conditions imposed in the order of anticipatory bail and hence there is no question of not complying with the conditions at all. ( 5 ) IN the order in Cr1. M. P. 1251/91 and connected petitions, in para 21, my learned Brother Justice Janarthanam had pointed out that even assuming that the learned Public Prosecutor consented for grant of anticipatory bail, judicial propriety demands learned Sessions Judge to take into consideration the serious nature of the accusation and gravity of the commission of the offences of double murder, the incriminating materials collected during the course of investigation till then including their arrest, the possibility of their making a fervent attempt in defacing or tempering with the evidence available on record in a bid to escape from the clutches of law, which would hamper the further progress of investigation and the possibility of the accused fleeing away from justice and allied matters at the time of grant of anticipatory bail. In para 24, the learned Judge has stated that it is open to the petitioners to move regular bail application before the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, which, in turn consider them on merits undeterred and uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in this order. Those considerations are necessarily to be taken into account at the time of granting bail also. Those considerations need not necessarily be confined only to a case of anticipatory bail. The stark fact remains that on 2. 5. 1991, the learned Sessions Judge has dismissed the petition for bail but in five days viz. , on 7. 5. 199 1, the learned Sessions has allowed the petition for bail. No change of circumstances has been stated in his order, dated 7. 5. 1991. It is also relevant at this stage to mention that only on 22. 4. 1991, the High Court had cancelled the order of anticipatory bail granted by the learned Sessions Judge. The first respondent had surrendered on 29. 4. 1991. Within two days, he had moved for bail and it was dismissed and within 5 days, he filed a bail petition and had obtained bail. The occurrence was on 20. 12. 1990. Admittedly, the first respondent was not present at the time of occurrence. The first respondent had surrendered on 29. 4. 1991. Within two days, he had moved for bail and it was dismissed and within 5 days, he filed a bail petition and had obtained bail. The occurrence was on 20. 12. 1990. Admittedly, the first respondent was not present at the time of occurrence. The allegations made against him and that he entered into a conspiracy and only in pursuance of which, double murders were committed. The learned Sessions Judge had taken into account that occurrence took place on 28. 12. 1991 and that the first respondent was not present at the time of occurrence and has granted bail. These circumstances were available even on 2. 5. 199 1 when bail was rejected. No new circumstance has been set out by the learned Sessions Judge after the rejection of bail on 2. 5. 1991. Mr. Kumaravel, the learned Government Advocate pointed out that at the time of consideration of this bail petition, one Basheer Ali also filed objection. In it, he has stated that even at the time when there was an interim bail for three days because of Ramzan, accused Abdul Hameed and his hirelings had threatened the petitioner and his family members. So taking all the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Sessions Judge ought not to have granted bail so soon after the rejection on the bail just five days earlier when there were no change of circumstance. ( 6 ) ANY way, considerations for cancellation of the bail are different from considerations to be taken into account for grant of bail. In cases, where the accused is likely to tamper the witnesses and tamper the investigation, bail is cancelled. The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent relied upon the ruling reported in Bhagrithsinh Mudeja v. State of Gujarat. In para 6, the Apex Court has held as follows: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. 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 for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tempering with evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the ruling reported in State of Maharashtra v. Buddhikothi Subba Rao. In it the apex court has deprecated the practice of litigants to approach to different courts for bail when bail has been refused by a judge just two days earlier. The apex court has also indicated the circumstances to be taken into account while granting bail. In para 7, the apex court has pointed as follows: "this decision has to be made, mainly in non-bailable cases, having regard to the nature of the crime, the circumstances in which it was committed the back ground of the accused, the possibility of his jumping bail, the impact that his release may make on the prosecution witnesses, its impact on society and the possibility of retribution etc. The learned Sessions Judge has not considered these circumstances, while granting bail. Any way, as I have indicated, different considerations as has been pointed out in the ruling which I have referred earlier would apply for cancellation of bail. Another important factor to be borne in mind is that occurrence was on 28. 12. 1990 and we are now in the first week of September, 1991. In para 15 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was stated as follows: TIJ submit that already witnesses had complained about the threats made by the accused persons. But yet this contention is vague and does not give particulars. The learned Government Advocate also subscribed to the statement and that witnesses were threatened. In these circumstances, though I am not inclined to cancel the bail, circumstances warrant imposition of certain conditions so as to avoid any possible threat to the witnesses, in the case. But yet this contention is vague and does not give particulars. The learned Government Advocate also subscribed to the statement and that witnesses were threatened. In these circumstances, though I am not inclined to cancel the bail, circumstances warrant imposition of certain conditions so as to avoid any possible threat to the witnesses, in the case. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, the petitions for cancellation of bail are dismissed, but conditions are hereby imposed on the first respondent in each case that they should stay at Madurai and report in Thallakulam Police Station daily at 10. 00 A. M. They should furnish their address at Madurai to the second respondent. Petition dismissed.