JUDGMENT : L. Rath, J. - This application has been filed by the State u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking cancellation of bail of the petitioners who are facing trial in G.R. Case No. 393 of 1990 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Bhawanipatna for offences Under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 149, IPC. The indictment which the opposite parties are facing is that on 3-12-1990 when the Chief Minister of the State was visiting Bhawanipatna the opposite parties and some others numbering about 15 to 20 belonging to Yuba Congress shouted slogans against him, showed black flags and coming to his car pelted stones at him causing injury to his nose. The miscreants ran away on being chased by police but two of them, namely, Basanta Kumar Panda and Pradeep Behera, were caught hold of by the police. Subsequently the opposite parties were arrested and forwarded to the Court. Their application for bail having been rejected by the S.D.J.M, they moved the Sessions Judge who by his order dated 7-12-1990 directed their enlargement on bail. In passing the order, the facts that weighed with the learned Sessions Judge were that in the forwarding report of the opposite parties by the investigating officer, it had been stated that Pradeep Kumar Panda, Basanta Kumar Panda, Sarada Prasad Swain, Kusuma Ranjan Patnaik, Goel Ashok. Goel and Kausal were apprehended and had been released on bail by the police. This was so, even if the case had been started inter alia u/s 307 IPC and Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, Besides the learned Sessions Judge also took into consideration the fact opposite parties are residents within the jurisdiction of the that the Court and that there was no apprehension of their fleeing from justice. 2. Learned Government Advocate Mr. Das appearing in support of the petition places reliance on Chhaila Pradhan and State of Orissa Vs. Bansidhar Pradhan and two Ors. and Bhagaban Pradhan and Others, to contend that an application for cancellation of bail lies if bail has been granted illegally or improperly by wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. lt is his submission that considering the gravity of the offence, the order of bail should be cancelled. Besides, he relies on AIR 1978 S C 179 (Gurcharan Singh and Ors. lt is his submission that considering the gravity of the offence, the order of bail should be cancelled. Besides, he relies on AIR 1978 S C 179 (Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State-Delhi Administration) in which the Supreme Court has observed that the overriding considerations in granting bail which are common both in the case of Section 437(1) and Section 439(1), are the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed and the position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and the witnesses. It is the submission of Mr. Das that the learned Sessions Judge in granting bail did not consider the case in its proper perspective and the allegations against the opposite parties being grave involving also an offence u/s 307, IPC and the status of the injured being that of the Chief Minister of the State, no bail should have been granted to the opposite parties. 3. The injury report on examination of the injured shows that he suffered one abrasion (fresh bleeding) with encircling bruise of 1 cm, 1 1/2 cm,(linear cut), located horizontally at the bridge of the nose, the encircling bruise being more marked below the left eye-lid. On being referred to, the Chief Minister was also examined by another doctor who found one dressed Injury on the bridge of the nose, linear 1 1/2cm. abrasion with bruise 1 cm diameter and the nasal septum grossly deviated to right side. There was congestion at the {sic) area and upper part of septum on right side. There was bleeding on strain and clinically no fracture was detected. The opinion of the doctor who first examined the injured was that the injury was a simple one. 4. An application u/s 439(2) CrPC as was decided by a Division Bench of this Court in Chhaila Pradhan and State of Orissa Vs. Bansidhar Pradhan and two Ors. and Bhagaban Pradhan and Others is to be allowed if bail has been granted illegally or improperly on wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. It is hence to be seen if the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the opposite parties on considerations which warrant interference. Bansidhar Pradhan and two Ors. and Bhagaban Pradhan and Others is to be allowed if bail has been granted illegally or improperly on wrong and arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion. It is hence to be seen if the learned Sessions Judge has granted bail to the opposite parties on considerations which warrant interference. The impugned order discloses the learned Sessions Judge to have considered the facts that the I. O. had released some other persons on bail even though the case involved an offence u/s 307, I.P.C, that the opposite parties are local residents and that there is no apprehension of their fleeing from justice. None of these considerations was illegal or improper. 5. Hon'ble Justice Bhagwati observed in Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna, while dealing with pretrial release : "Even under the law as it stands today the Courts must abandon the antiquated concept under which pretrial release is ordered only against bail with sureties. That concept is outdated and experience has shown that it has done more harm than good. The new insight into the subject of pretrial release which has been developed in socially advanced countries and particularly the United States should now inform the decisions of our Courts in regard to pretrial release. If the Court is satisfied, after taking into account, on the basis of information placed before it, that the accused has his roots in the community and is not likely to abscond it can safely release the accused on his personal bond. To determine whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing, the Court should take into account the following factors concerning the accused : 1. The length of his residence in the community, 2. his employment,status, history and his financial condition, 3. his family ties and relationships, 4. his reputation, character and monetary condition, 5. his prior criminal record including any record of prior release on recognizance or on bail, 6. the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability, 7. the nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non-appearance, and 8. the identity of responsible members of the community who would vouch for his reliability, 7. the nature of the offence charged and the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sentence in so far as these factors are relevant to the risk of non-appearance, and 8. any other factors indicating the ties of the accused to the community or bearing on the risk of wilful failure to appear." Taking the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court into consideration, it can hardly be said that the considerations which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge were improper. He has taken into consideration of the opposite parties being the local residents. Nothing has been placed on record as regards any past criminal record of the opposite parties. They are all persons, as per the police version, affiliated to a political party and are alleged to have acted in a grossly rash manner which is liable to be condemned in no uncertain terms. But all the same it would hardly necessitate their incarceration at the pretrial stage. 6. In another case Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat, the Apex Court observed : "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 cetena 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 descretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. The order made by the High Court is conspicuous by its silence on these two relevant considerations. It is for these reasons that we consider in the interest of justice a compelling necessity to interfere with the order made by the High Court." 7. Even as regards cancellation of bail, it was held in AIR 1978 SC 961 (The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi) that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing but cancellation of bail already granted is quite another thing. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. 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 the freedom during the trial. 8. It is not the submission of the learned Government Advocate that the opposite parties since their release on bail have in any way abused their liberty. They are persons of the locality and there is no apprehension of their not making themselves available for trial. The injury suffered by the injured was a simple one. If the investigating officer himself thought in respect of some other accused that they were entitled to bail and released them on bail of whom two had been caught red-handed at the spot, it can hardly be said that the opposite parties were improperly released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge. It is another matter that the investigating officer was not authorised to release such persons on bail as they were involved in a non-bailable offence. Because of these considerations, I do not find any merit in this application and hence decline to interfere. The application is rejected.