S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) APPLICATION for bail of four accused persons and notice to show cause against cancellation of bail of one accused are taken up together. ( 2 ) INFORMANT is a Forester. On 30/10/1993 while he was on duty with mobile party and was proceeding down stream in river Mahanadi with seized logs in boat, he saw 20 to 25 persons coming in a big boat armed with lathis. Previously, he had been approached to release the seized logs, which he had refused. Apprehending life risk, mobile party left the seized logs and ran for life. Gang coming in the big boat chased and approaching the informant and others severely assaulted them. Informant had multiple injuries throughout the body and lost two teeth. Joginath Tripathy, forest guard also sustained injuries. When informant fell unconscious, gang left thinking that he is dead. Prema one of the members of the gang took away the loaded gun supplied to informant officially. They also took away the seized logs. After informant-regained sense, he came to Gopalpur being assisted by Joginath. From Gopalpur one gentleman of the village brought him to Subampur. He was shifted to Athgarh Sub-divisional hospital in the vehicle of mobile partly from Subarnpur. At Athgarh, he submitted a written report to Officer-incharge Banki Police Station within whose jurisdiction occurrence took place through the Assistant Conservator of Forests who forwarded the same. Receiving the report, Banki P. S. case was registered and investigation was taken up. Logs taken away were seized. Gun has not been recovered. At that stage on basis of statements recorded, Investigating Officer arrested the five accused persons on 8/11/1993 and forwarded them to Subdi visional Judicial Magistrate on 9/11/1993. ( 3 ) BAIL moved by the four-arrested accused being refused, they moved learned Sessions Judge- for bail on 10/11/1993. Learned Sessions Judge by order-dated 15/11/1993 refused bail to four petitioners and granted bail to Pratapon the sole ground that no witness has named him. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, investigation has been transferred to Circle Inspector. Test Identification Parade has been conducted in which accused Parbasi Dhal and Jagannath Dalai could not be identified. Accused Dambarudhar Samal and Parsuram Rana have been identified. ( 4 ) IN the meantime, investigation has been transferred to Circle Inspector. Test Identification Parade has been conducted in which accused Parbasi Dhal and Jagannath Dalai could not be identified. Accused Dambarudhar Samal and Parsuram Rana have been identified. In this background application for bail of the four accused persons and questions of cancellation of bail granted to Pratap Behera are to be considered: ( 5 ) IN The State v. Captain Jagjit Singh1, it has been observed that in a case where an offence is bailable, bail has to be grantee. If, however, the offence is not bailable, further considerations arise and the Court has to decide the question of grant of bail in the light of those further considerations, such as, nature and seriousness of the offence, character of evidence, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused reasonable possibility of the presence of accused not being served at the Anal, reasonable apprehension of witnesses being tampered with, larger interests of the public or the State and similar other considerations, which arise when a Court is asked to admit to bail in a non-bailable offence. In spite of that fact that the powers of the High Court, in matters of granting bail is very vide, various considerations as indicated earlier are to be taken into account before bail is granted in a non-bailable offence. Aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court is to be kept in mind and question of bail to be considered by applying the guidelines indicated. ( 6 ) WHILE giving emphasis on the fundamental right to liberty of a person as enshrined in our Constitution, law made by the Parliament to maintain law and order by bringing offenders to book, has to be given due weight and a balance has to be struck on judicial considerations so that Courtts interference with investigation or with action of investigating agency docs not affect the ultimate object of punishing the culprit. As has, been observed in a different context by Privy Council in decision reported in King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad2, function of judiciary and the police are. Complementary, not overlapping and combination of individual liberty with due observance of law and order is only to be obtained leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course subject to right of Courts to intervene when moved. Complementary, not overlapping and combination of individual liberty with due observance of law and order is only to be obtained leaving each to exercise its own function, always, of course subject to right of Courts to intervene when moved. This observation has been approved by Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang v. State3 and Om Prakash Narang and another v. State (Delhi Admn. ). Aforesaid observation has full application to applications for bail in non-bailable offences also. ( 7 ) UNDER section 157 Cr. P. C. , Investigating Officer has been given direction to arrest an accused person in course of investigation. Individual liberty is protected where there is apprehension of arrest in a non-bailable offence even before actual arrest if such arrest by police is apprehended to be on account of extraneous considerations not actually related to the offence of which such person is alleged to be accused. After arrest also Court takes care of liberty of an accused in a non-bailable offence and for that purpose wide power is vested in Courts to release an accused on bail. Now Parliament has fixed limitations for completion of investigation and after the expiry of period fixed if investigation is not completed, arrested accused is given the right to move football. With all care being taken by Parliament to protect individual liberty. Court is to be slow to release an arrested accused on bail keeping in mind that wide power vested is to be exercised with restraint. Only where arrest of an accused by investigating officer appears unreasonable, bail is to be granted during the progress of investigation. If there are some materials in support of the Investigating Officer forming an opinion to arrest accused persons, Court would be slow to exercise its wide discretion for the limited period prescribed by Parliament under section 167, Cr. P. C. After investigation is completed considerations would be slightly different. Thus, consideration of bail of an accused before his arrest under section 438 Cr. P. C. , after his arrest during investigation within the period prescribed under section 167, Cr. P. C. and after submission of charge sheet are three different stages which are to be distinguished from one another. ( 8 ) IN this case, application for bail has been filed before expiry of the period limited giving right to accused under section 167 (2) proviso Cr. P. C. and after submission of charge sheet are three different stages which are to be distinguished from one another. ( 8 ) IN this case, application for bail has been filed before expiry of the period limited giving right to accused under section 167 (2) proviso Cr. P. C. Offence has been committed by a gang of 20 to 25 persons who have overpowered officers in due discharge of official duty, injured some of them, removed the loaded gun and the property in respect of which forest offence has been committed. Place of occurrence is more dominated by the gang than the official party. Thus, nature and seriousness of the offences does not normally call for interference by court at the stage of investigation. Domination of the gang of accused is a circumstance peculiar to the accused since persons of the area would not normally come forward to reveal what they know about the persons in the gang if the persons are set at liberty to mix with them in the society. Evidence in this case would however, be of the official persons in the party and a few others. There may not be much difficulty in securing attendance of the accused persons but as stated earlier at this stage their liberty may psychologically cause the witnesses not to speak out what they know for furtherance of the investigation even though the accused persons may not directly tamper with the same. Besides, in such types of offences, larger interest of the public and the State requires the persons accused of the offences to be secluded from the society temporarily. However, all the tests being satisfied a person arrested should be reasonably connected with the offences. ( 9 ) EXAMINED in this light there is no scope for interference with the detention of accused Dambarudhar and Parsuram who have been named and have also been identified since while considering the application for bail statements are not to be tested in light of their appreciation or admissibility under the Evidence Act. ( 10 ) EVEN though accused Parabasi Dhal and Jagannath Dalai have been named, they could not be identified. This is a circumstance to direct their release in absence of any material at this stage about their previous conduct in the society. ( 10 ) EVEN though accused Parabasi Dhal and Jagannath Dalai have been named, they could not be identified. This is a circumstance to direct their release in absence of any material at this stage about their previous conduct in the society. ( 11 ) AS regards accused Pratap Behera, learned Sessions Judge ought to have been more careful when he observed that no witness has named him. If the case diary would have been carefully perused, it could have been found that many accused persons have been described in their nicknames. Before me it is stated on basis of some material like statement of Chowkidar that nickname of Pratap is witnesses have named Pati This Pati. However, affidavits have been filed on behalf of Pratap that he has no nickname at all. Investigating Officer should have taken more care while writing the nicknames to ascertain the real names of persons described in their nicknames. In such a situation, I am not inclined to interfere with bail granted though I am not able to appreciate the order of learned Sessions Judge. I make it clear that in case it is revealed during investigation that accused Pratap has a nickname Pati, prosecutor may move learned Sessions Judge to cancel the bail as grant of bail on assumption of wrong fact that an accused has not been named by any witness, is a good ground to cancel bail granted Court can correct its own Mistake. ( 12 ) IN conclusion, accused Parabasi Dhal and Jagannath Dalai are directed to be released on bail of Rs. 10,000. 00 (ten thousand) each with two local sureties for the like amount each. After release, each of them shall report at Banki Police-station twice every week on day and time fixed by the Investigating Officer till final form is submitted. Application for bail of other two accused persons is rejected for the present. Notice to show cause against Pratap Behera is discharged subject to the observation made. ( 13 ) IN result, application for bail is granted in part. Application partly allowed. .