Judgment : This is an application for cancellation of the bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.8279 of 1988 in C.A.No.774 of 1986 by order dated 210. 1988. A Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 210. 1988 directing release of the petitioners therein including the respondent herein on bail on each of the petitioners executing a bond for a sum of Rs.5,000 with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Cuddalore. 2. It is stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition that the respondent while on bail has committed another murder of one Subramanyam, son of Manikasammutiar of Sammutikuppan on 22.1993 and a case has been registered in Crl.No.32 of 1993 for offences under Secs.147,148,341,324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the Inspector of Police, Kullanchavadi Police Station. It is alleged that both the murders took place within the same police jurisdiction, and the accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Portnovo on 3. 1993 when he was remanded to judicial custody in Crl.No.32 of 1993. It is stated that he is at present detained in Central Jail, Cuddalore. It is further alleged that the said Manickam, father of the deceased figures as an eye-witness in both the murder cases and Mari-muthu, wife of the deceased is cited as witness in the subsequent murder case and if the accused is allowed to be at large, it would be a danger for the lives of the above referred two witnesses. It is also stated in another paragraph that the respondent is a record sheeted rowdy in the area, there are number of enemies who are aiming at his life and his stay at large would cost his life. On the above allegations, the prayer is made by the prosecution. 3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for cancellation of bail have all been denied by the respondent. He has also alleged mala fides on the part of the police officials. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the same at this stage. .4. 3. The averments in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for cancellation of bail have all been denied by the respondent. He has also alleged mala fides on the part of the police officials. It is not necessary to go into the correctness of the same at this stage. .4. It has been held by the Supreme Court of India in Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 961:1978 Crl.L.J. 952: (1978)2 S.C.C. 411 : 1978 S.C.C. (Crl.) 223: (1978)2 S.C.J. 159: (1978) M.L.J. (Crl.) 509: (1978)2 S.C.W.R. 175 that rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing and cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. The court has observed that it is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case and 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 is no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. In fact, it is seen from the facts of that case that cancellation of bail was sought when the sessions trial was pending on the footing that the accused had tampered with the witnesses in that case. In the present case, the trial is over already and accused was convicted by the trial court. The matter is pending on appeal in this Court and it is represented by learned counsel for the respondent that the appeal is already part-heard. But, learned Additional Public Prosecutor states that the Bench which started hearing the matter directed it to be posted before some other bench and hence it cannot be treated as part-heard. Whatever may be the status of the appeal, it is only pending in this Court and there be no apprehension of tampering with any witness in the case. 5. On the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for cancellation of bail the question is whether the bail should be cancelled or not. The question whether the accused is guilty of committing any murder is yet to be decided in the second case. It is not possible for this Court to assume that he is guilty of murder. The question whether the accused is guilty of committing any murder is yet to be decided in the second case. It is not possible for this Court to assume that he is guilty of murder. No doubt, he is accused of committing it but it is yet to be prosecuted. In that case, on the completion of investigation, materials may be available to the court which is concerned with the trial of that case. 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor relies on a judgment in Surendra Singh v. State of Bihar, 1990 Crl.L.J. 1904. A single Judge of the Patna High Court has held that the order of cancellation of bail may be passed on seven grounds, Two of which are relied on by learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The second ground is when the person on bail commits similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail and the fourth ground is that 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. According to him both the grounds will apply to the present case. We are unable to agree. The second ground has not been set out in the affidvait. It is not open to the petitioner to add that serious law and order problem will be created by the offence committed by the accused while he was on bail. As regards the first ground we have already pointed out that when the materials are not placed before the court, it is not possible to come even to a prima facie conclusion that the accused might be guilty of the offence. .7. In the circumstances, the best course is to oppose the bail application moved by the accused in the second case. It is for the concerned court to decide whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the accused should be let on bail or not. In the circumstances, the fact that the accused is involved now in another case cannot be taken into account for the purpose of cancellation of bail granted to him. 8. In the result, we dismiss this petition.