R. L. Gupta,j. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filedunder Sections 439 (2) and 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code for short) for cancellation of bail granted to the second respondent Gurpreet Singh alias Bobby (hereinafter called the respondent) by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) vide order dated 9. 6. 1992. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the registration of FIR. No. 540 of 1990 at PS Tilak Nagar under Sections 302/307/34 Indian Penal Code against the respondent and co-accused Satnam Singh are that on 20. 9. 90 at about 7. 30 PM, Satnam Singh, co-ccused caused stab in juries to Smt. Karam Kaur at her house in Krishna Park, New Delhi and ran away from there. This led to the registration of a case under Section 307 Indian Penal Code in PS Tilak Nagar vide FIR No. 539 of 1990 at about 8. 30 PM the same night. Sh. lqbal Singh and the injured Gurvinder Singh (hereinafter called the injured) who wanted to start a Health Club, had gone to pickup Davinder Singh, deceased (hereinafter called the deceased) from his house in Block No. 25, Tilak Nagar on the Motor Cycle of lqbal Singh with the intention that he may also accompany them. Since they were now three persons, lqbal Singh obtained the Motor Cycle of one Tejinder Singh. At that point of time lqbal Singh informed that his maternal aunt Smt. Karam Kaur had been stabbed by Satnam Singh, the co-accused on that very day. The deceased desired lqbal Singh to check up if a report of the incident had been lodged with the police. The injured and the deceased drove on the Motor Cycle obtained from Tejinder Singh while lqbal Singh proceeded on his own Motor Cycle separately, for going to PS Tilak Nagar. ( 3 ) THE further case of the prosecution is that on the way, lqbal Singh spotted the co- accused Satnam Singh sitting in a readymade garments shop of Kanwaljit Singh. lqbal singh then asked the deceased and the injured to wait by the side of that shop so that he may go and inform the police about the presence of Satnam Singh at the shop of Kanwaijit Singh. lqbal singh then asked the deceased and the injured to wait by the side of that shop so that he may go and inform the police about the presence of Satnam Singh at the shop of Kanwaijit Singh. ( 4 ) AFTER vainly waiting for some time for the return of lqbal Singh, the injured and the deceased themselves proceeded towards PS Tilak Nagar on the Motor Cycle. The injured was driving it while the deceased was pillion rider. Near the main crossing of Tilak Nagar, they were intercepted by co-accused Satnam Singh and the respondent, who had followed them on a scooter driven by the respondent. Satnam Singh enquired from the deceased as to where they were going. The deceased replied that they were going to the Police Stateion. There upon Satnam Singh asked them to refrain from going to the Police Station but the deceased insisted to the contrary. At that point of time, the respondent caught hold of the deceased while the co-accused Satnam Singh inflicted ten knife injuries on his person, causing his instantaneous death. When the injured tried to rescue the deceased from their clutches, the respondent secured him also while the co-accused gave him four knife injuries. Thereafter both the accused sped away. They could be arrested only after about ten days of the occurrence. ( 5 ) THE injured was taken to Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Hospital (DDU Hospital) by a passer-by on Motor Cycle. The injured narrated the occurrence to Tejinder Singh who met him outside the casualty. At about 1. 00 AM in the night the police recorded the statement of the injured wherein he mentioned the name of the co-accused Satnam Singh as the assailant and described the respondent because he did not know him by name. The respondent refused to join test identification parade on 3. 10. 90 in the jail. He is alleged to have filed three bail applications before the Sessions Judge. The first application was dismissed as withdrawn on 3. 11. 1990, second was dismissed on 19. 1. 91 on merits and still another application was dismissed on merits on 27. 2. 1991. He then tried his luck for grant of bail on merits by filing Cr. M. (M)590/91 in the High Court which was also dismissed on 21. 3. 1991. ( 6 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. 1. 91 on merits and still another application was dismissed on merits on 27. 2. 1991. He then tried his luck for grant of bail on merits by filing Cr. M. (M)590/91 in the High Court which was also dismissed on 21. 3. 1991. ( 6 ) I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties. It appears that by the impugned order dated 9. 6. 1992, learned Additional Sessions Judge seized with the trial of the case granted bail to the respondent by making the following observations, "at this stage the court is not bound to weigh and examine the evidence of the prosecution and the defence of the accused when only a prima facie view of the matter is to be taken at the time of the consideration of the bail application of the accused, it would not be proper for this court to comment or discuss the prosecution evidence at this stage. It is true that Public Witness Mohinder Singh and Gurvinder Singh who are stated to be material witnesses against the accused/applicant, have not yet been examined before the court despite repeated dates of hearing being fixed for prosecution evidence. It is also appearing from the record that the application had been admitted to interim bail by this court on medical ground vide order dated 23. 10. 91 for a period of two months which was extended to another period of two months vide order dated 23. 12. 1991 and was again extended for another period of two months on the medical ground vide order dated 26. 2. 92. " Later on he observed after discussing some authorties, "in the present case, the role assigned to accused/applicant has been that he grappled (LIPATGAYA) with the deceased while co-accused Satnam Singh caused stab injuries to the deceased. The accused Satnam Singh is not stated to be carrying an open knife in his hand at the time of incident and is stated to have taken out the said knife after grappling by the accused/applicant Gurpreet Singh and thus accused/applicant did not see the knife in the hand of the co-accused Satnam Singh prior to the stab injury being given by the co-accused Satnam Singh. " ( 7 ) IN this respect first of all it may be noted that the High Court had rejected the request of the respondent for grant of regular bail. " ( 7 ) IN this respect first of all it may be noted that the High Court had rejected the request of the respondent for grant of regular bail. It was, therefore, highly improper on the part of the learned ASJ to have granted bail to the respondent by discussing the merits of the case. It is rather strange that he himself first observed that he was not to weigh evidence at this stage, he breached his own observations by discussing the evidence to a great extent. No new circumstances were shown to exist before the learned ASJ on account of which he could have exercised jurisdiction for grant of bail to the respondent after the rejection of his bail application by this Court. Learned ASJ ought to have remembered that after rejection of the bail plea of the respondent by this Court, he was not competent to entertain his hail application. This is, in fact, a serious lapse on his part to have entertained the bail application and then venture to grant regular bail to him despite orders of this Court. It must be remembered that the Sessions court is subordinate to be and under the Superintendence of the High Court and once a bail application is dismissed by this court on merits. Sessions court is not at all competent to grant bail to an accused. At the most it could have directed the respondent to approach this Court for grant of regular bail. ( 8 ) IN spite of this serious infirmity in the order of the learned ASJ, I am further of the view that the respondent does notdeserve to remain on bail any more. He seems to be guilty prima facie of giving threats to the prosecution witnesses either personally or through some of his supporters after his bail by the Sessions Court. My attention has been drawn to the copy of the DD report No. 23-A dated 14. 11. 1991 lodged by Smt. Karam Kaur in the police ration. In this report she says that Sewa Singh, his wife Ram Kaur and their son-in-law Surinder were threatening them that if she appeared as a witness against their son Satnam Singh (co-accused) and Bobby (which is the pet name of respondent), they will finish their entire family. 11. 1991 lodged by Smt. Karam Kaur in the police ration. In this report she says that Sewa Singh, his wife Ram Kaur and their son-in-law Surinder were threatening them that if she appeared as a witness against their son Satnam Singh (co-accused) and Bobby (which is the pet name of respondent), they will finish their entire family. It is rather strange that despite the attention of learned ASJ having been drawn to this report during the arguments of the bail application, he chose to ignore this report and did not even mention anything about this report in the impugned order. At page 57 of this paper book is a copy of the police report which was also brought to the notice of learned ASJ in which the police had also reported that if the respondent was granted bail. he can tamper with the prosecution evidence and could even jump bail. ( 9 ) THAT the respondent tampered with prosecution evidence is appearent to some extent from the statement of the injured himself who was examined by the trial court as Public Witness - 6 after grant of bail to him. He did not support the case of the prosecution against the respondent. It is specifically mentioned in para III at page 11 of the present petition that apart from the previous conduct of the respondent, it was also pertinent to mention that even presently he was persistently making efforts himself through telephones and also through his associates to pressurise the victim s family not to come forward in the Court to depose against him and also terrorising and pressurising the petitioner and his family to see that even the star witnesses Gurvinder Singh and Mohinder Singh do not come to court to depose against him and if they so dared they would be done to death. The statement of Gurvinder Singh injured as Public Witness -6 was recorded after the release of the accused on bail and therefore, prima facie it appears that the apprehension of the petitioner that the injured will be pressurised by the respondent not to depose against him has come out to be true. The statement of Gurvinder Singh injured as Public Witness -6 was recorded after the release of the accused on bail and therefore, prima facie it appears that the apprehension of the petitioner that the injured will be pressurised by the respondent not to depose against him has come out to be true. Still, according to the prosecution, there are two more witnesses, namely, Mohinder Singh and Knnwaijit Singh who will identify the respondent as one of the perpetrator of this ghastly crime and even they may not depose against him if he is allowed to remain on bail. This apprehension of the petitioner, in my view, in not without basis and rather well-founded. It is not the intention of this Court to say that the case of the prosecution against the respondent is true. However, if the case of the prosecution is allowed to fall only on account of the fear or terror, created in the minds of the witnesses by the respondent, it will simply be a travesty of justice. Therefore, in order to assail the apprehensions of the petitioner that the respondent is terrorising and pressurising other witnesses also, it is desirable in the circumstances of the case that his bail is cancelled. Therefore, to conclude, I am of the view that it is a case wherein the bail has been granted to the respondent by the learned ASJ by ignoring the order of this Court not to release him on bail and further that if he is allowed to remain on bail, he is likely to prevent the other witnesses also from appearing and deposing about the true facts of the case. It was observed by this Court in the case of H. C. Gaur Vs. Rakesh Vij and another (Delhi) 1990 (1) C. C. Cases 461 that when the bail plea of an accused person had been rejected by the High Court and no new facts for consideration for grant of bail had been shown to exist, there was no justification by the trial court to grant bail. ( 10 ) THUS, taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that it is a fit case wherein the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. ( 10 ) THUS, taking the totality of the circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that it is a fit case wherein the bail granted to the respondent is cancelled. Therefore, under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code, I cancel bail of respondent and direct that he be immediately committed to custody by issue of a non-bailable warrants of arrest.