R. K. DASH, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, wife of Surya Bohidar (hereinafter referred to as the deceasedt), in this application under section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has prayed to cancel the bail granted to opposite parties 1 and 2 who are facing trial in S. T. No. 7 121 of 1995. ( 2 ) AT the outset I may note here that opposite parties 1 and 2 moved this Court for bail in separate applications and the matters came before Honble R. K. Patra, J. , and Honble D. M. Patniak, J. for consideration. Both the Honble Judges upon hearing released them on bail. When this application for cancellation of bail was listed before me, I ordered that the matter be placed before Honble Chief Justice. Pursuant thereto the record was placed before his Lordship who by an administrative order was placed before his Lordship who, by an administrative order in a separate note directed to place this case before me for disposal. ( 3 ) PETITIONERTS case as set out in the application and in the written note of submissions may be briefly stated thus: On 23-4-1994 at about 11. 45 p. m. opposite parties 1 and 2 and others in furtherance of their common object committed murder of the deceased in a most ghastly, gruesome and diabolitical manner near Hirakud Police Station due to political rivalry. Shri M. M. Ali, the then Inspector in- charge of Hirakud Police Station, drew up F. I. R. whereupon a case was registered and after due investigation charge-sheet under sections 147, 148, 302/149, 120-B. I. P. C. and section 24 of the Arms Act was laid against all the persons, including opposite parties 1 and 2, involved in the incident, During investigation opposite parties 1 and 2 absconded and could-not be apprehended by the police. Later on, they surrendered in the court and moved successive bail applications before the Sessions Judge and this Court and considering the gravity of the offence and the materials collected during investigation their prayer for bail was rejected. Opposite party No. 1-Pradipta Mohaptra again moved this Court for bail in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1563 of 1995 and was admitted to interim bail on medical ground till 7-1-1996. After expiry of the period, he surrendered in the court below and was taken to custody. Opposite party No. 1-Pradipta Mohaptra again moved this Court for bail in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1563 of 1995 and was admitted to interim bail on medical ground till 7-1-1996. After expiry of the period, he surrendered in the court below and was taken to custody. Again he approached the Sessions Court for bail on very same ground and the learned Additional Sessions Judge upon hearing rejected the prayer. Thereupon he approached this Court m Criminal Misc. Case No. 1353 of 1996. It was urged that he suffered from renal colic with hypertension and bronchial asthma and was treated in the Eurology Department of V. S. S. Medical College and Hospital, Burla, Sambalpur, His health condition having not improved, he was referred to All India Institute of Medical Sciences (for short AIIMS), New Delhi, where he was treated from 7-1-1996 to 5-4-1996. Since he had to undergo further treatment n the AIIMS, he should be released on bail. Upon hearing the parties and on consideration of the discharge certificate issued by the AIIMS, Honble D. M. Patnaik, J. admitted him to bail by order dated 16-7-1996. Opposite party No. 2-Prasanta Kumar Panda initially approached the Additional Sessions Judge for bail and the same having been rejected, he approached this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 596 of 1994, which also met with the same fate. Then again coved this Court on medical ground. It was alleged that due to reactive depression he was treated as an indoor patient in. V. S. S. Medical College, Burla and had been advised to go to Ranchi Manasika Arogyasala, Kanke, for better treatment. The matter came up for consideration before Honble R. K. Patra, J. and upon hearing he was granted bail for a period of 30 days. The interim order was extended from time to time and ultimately the application was rejected being not pressed, as he had filed another regular bail application vide Misc. Case No. 2297 of 1996. Along with the application he filed xerox copy of the Patient discharge slip of Ranchi Manasika Arogyasala, Since the earlier application for bail was heard by Honble R. K. Patra, J. this application was also placed before his Lordship. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discharge slip, the Court allowed his prayer. It was ordered that on his surrendering he would be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. Taking into consideration the aforesaid discharge slip, the Court allowed his prayer. It was ordered that on his surrendering he would be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the Sessions Judge/additional Sessions Judge, Samhalpur. ( 4 ) THE grievance of the petitioner is that the opposite parties 1 and 2 when initially moved this Court had not complained that they had any ailment. Only after their prayer for bail was rejected on merit, they in order to get themselves freed from the prison bar, procured medical reports by exercising their political influence from V. S. S. Medical College, Burla and thereafter from AIIMS and Rachi Manasika Arogyasala and obtained bail orders from this Court. It is urged that all the medical reports are false and fabricated. After release, opposite party No. 1 had never visited AIIMS for further treatment. Moreover, in course of argument it was contended that he took part in the municipal election and has been elected as a Ward Member of Hirakud N. A. C. So far as opposite party No. 2 is concerned, it is alleged he had no mental ailment at all. He has always been in active politics. Now he is the Working President of H. I. W. (Hirakud Industrial Works) Workerts Union and has signed a memorandum of settlement entered into between the management and the workers union on 16- 3-1996. Besides he contested in the municipal election from Hirakud N. A. C. held in July, 1997 and has been elected as the Chairman of the said N. A. C. While being on bail, it is alleged, they threatened the witnesses and by their muscle power as also by exercising influence on the Police Officers they could be able to win over the witnesses. Even-the Officer in-charge of Hirakud Police Station who was an eyewitness to the incident was gained over. Out ofl6 witnesses so far examined. 9 witnesses including the Officer in-charge did not support the prosecution case. In the circumstances it was urged that bail granted to the opposite parties 1 and 2 should be cancelled and they should be taken to custody till concll. lsion of the trial. ( 5 ) BOTH the opposite parties 1 and 2 by filingt separate counter affidavits denied the petitionerts allegations. In the circumstances it was urged that bail granted to the opposite parties 1 and 2 should be cancelled and they should be taken to custody till concll. lsion of the trial. ( 5 ) BOTH the opposite parties 1 and 2 by filingt separate counter affidavits denied the petitionerts allegations. They asserted that because of their ailments they were initially treated at V. S. S. Medical College and subsequently at AIIMS and Ranchi Manasika Arogyasala. Considering the reports of the treating physicians, they were admitted to bail. They denied the petitionerts allegation that they ever threatened or won over the witnesses. They, therefore, contended that there being no supervening circumstances, bail granted to them should not be cancelled. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel for parties and have gone through all relevant records and the documents. Before going into the merit of the case at the outset I would like to mention that 1 may not be understood to have sat upon the orders of this Court in exercise of appellate or revisional power. The merit of the orders admitting the opposite parties 1 and 2 to bail is, therefore, not the question for consideration in the present case. This being an application under section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. the question for adjudication is whether in the fact situation the bail granted to opposite parties 1 and 2 should be cancelled and they should be arrested and committed to custody. ( 7 ) THE aforesaid opposite parties moved the Sessions Court for their release on bail and the learned Sessions Judge on consideration of the materials available on record rejected their prayer. Bapi alias Pradipta Mohapatra - Opp. party No. 1 moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2469 of 1994 seeking for his release. The matter came up before Honble D. M. Patnaik, J. and his Lordship upon hearing rejected the prayer. Again he moved this Court for the second time in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1563 of 1995 and sought for his release on health ground. The matter came before Honble R. K. Patra, J. and as it appears from the record, his Lordship on consideration of the certificate issued by the doctor released him on interim bail for three months. Again he moved this Court for the second time in Criminal Misc. Case No. 1563 of 1995 and sought for his release on health ground. The matter came before Honble R. K. Patra, J. and as it appears from the record, his Lordship on consideration of the certificate issued by the doctor released him on interim bail for three months. The said order was extended from time to time and ultimately he surrendered before the trial court on 12-4-1996 and was taken to custody. A few days thereafter he again moved the Sessions Court for bail and the learned Additional Sessions Judge by his order dated 20-4-1996, rejected the prayer. For third time he approached this Court vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 1353 of 1996 and prayed for his release on medical ground. It was urged that while he was undergoing treatment in V. S. S. Medical College he was referred to AIIMS for better treatment and the treating physician of Eurology Clinic, AIIMS, New Delhi, detected stone on the left side kidney with bronchial asthma with hypertension and in order to continue the treatment in AIIMS he should be released on bail. The matter came up before Hontble D. M. Patnaik, J. and his Lordship of consideration of the xerox copy of the discharge certificate issued by the AIIMS admitted him to bail by order dated 16-7-1996. ( 8 ) COMING to the case of Kuna alias Prasanta Panda, his prayer for bail having been rejected by the Sessions Court he moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 596 of 1995. The matter came before Honble B. N. Das, J. and his Lordship on consideration of the materials on record by order dated 134-1995 rejected the prayer. Four months thereafter he again moved this Court in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2215 of 1995 on medical ground that due to reactive depression he was admitted as an indoor patient in V. S. S. Medical College Hospital on 19-7-1995. The treating physician discharging him on 2-8-1985 advised for further treatment at Ranchi Manasika Arogyasala. He filed the xerox copy of the discharged certificate issued by the Unit Head of Psychiatric Department, V. S. S. Medical College, Burla. The matter came up before Honble R. K. Patra, J. A report was called for from the Superintendent of Circle Jail. Sambalpur about his present health: condition. He filed the xerox copy of the discharged certificate issued by the Unit Head of Psychiatric Department, V. S. S. Medical College, Burla. The matter came up before Honble R. K. Patra, J. A report was called for from the Superintendent of Circle Jail. Sambalpur about his present health: condition. Pursuant thereto the Superintendent submitted a report enclosing the opinion of the Medical Officer, Circle Jail where it was indicated that the condition of the patient was as before. Considering the said opinion the court by order dated 14-9-1995 released him on bail for a period of thirty days. After expiry of the period, opposite party No. 2 did not surrender before the court below. He filed successive applications and obtained the period of interim bail extended from time to time. Ultimately the Misc. Case came to be dismissed being not pressed since it was contended that a fresh application for bail had been filed vide Criminal Misc. Case No. 2297 of 1996. It was urged that after being released on bail for interim period, opposite party Mo. 2 went to Ranchi and was examined in Ranchi Manashika Arogyasala. The treating physician on examination opined that since he had developed suicidal tendency he should avoid stress and strain. In support thereof, xerox copy of the Patient Discharge Slip issued by the Psychiatrist of Ranchi Manashika Arogyasala, was filed along with the application. The matter came before Honble R. K. Patra J. for hearing and his Lordship after hearing the counsel representing the parties and on consideration of the doctors reports as aforesaid allowed his prayer and directed that on his surrendering before the learned Sessions Judge! Addi. Sessions Judge, Sambalpur he would be released on bail on furnishing necessary bail bond. ( 9 ) FROM the narration of facts as aforesaid it is to be ascertained as to whether opposite parties by exercising fraud on the Court and by creating false and fabricated medical reports obtained orders of bail. It is not disputed at the Bar that both opposite parties 1 and 2 are in active politics, and have been elected as Ward Members for Ward Nos. 13 and 11 respectively of Hirakud N. A. C. Of them opposite party No. 2 has been elected as Chairman of the said N. A. C. as is evident from the notification dated 19-7-1997. 13 and 11 respectively of Hirakud N. A. C. Of them opposite party No. 2 has been elected as Chairman of the said N. A. C. as is evident from the notification dated 19-7-1997. Besides, he is the Working President of Hirakud Industrial Works Workers Union and in such capacity he has signed a memorandum of settlement entered into between the management and the representative of workers on 16-3-1996. From the discharge slip issued by Ranchi Manashika Arogyasala it transpires that he was admitted as an inpatient on 9- 1-1996 and was discharged on 16-1-1996. The doctor had advised him to take complete bed-rest at home and to avoid stressful situation because he had developed suicidal tendency. On 15-4- 1996 again he was examined and on examination it was found that his condition had further deteriorated. For the third time he was examined on 17-6-1996 and was advised to avoid stressful situation for risk of suicidal tendency. Prior to his going to Ranchi he while in custody was admitted in the Psychiatric Department of V. S. S. Medical College Hospital, Burla and as would appear from the discharge ticket avail able in Criminal Misc. Case No. 2215 of 1995, he was found to be having reactive depression. When he signed the memorandum of settlement on 16-3-1996 being the President of Workers union it is difficult to believe that he was a psychiatric patient and had developed suicidal tendency, as opined by the doctor. He has although offered explanation in his counter affidavit that he was never in active union activities and because of his popularity he was elected as the President, but the same cannot be believed in view of the fact that he took part in the discussions and signed the settlement. Besides, being the President of Workers union he is in active politics and has been holding the post of Chairman of Hirakud N. A. C. So, he being in active politics, it cannot by any stretch of imagination be believed that he had/has mental ailment with deteriorating health condition. I am, therefore, of the firm view that by exercising influence as a politician he could procure medical reports both from V. S. S. Medical College Hospital, Burla and Ranchi Manashika Arogyasala, with a view of impress upon the court that unless he was released, his life would be at stake. I am, therefore, of the firm view that by exercising influence as a politician he could procure medical reports both from V. S. S. Medical College Hospital, Burla and Ranchi Manashika Arogyasala, with a view of impress upon the court that unless he was released, his life would be at stake. Had these reports been brought on record, the Court would not have admitted him to bail since he is involved in a gruesome murder. It is needless to mention that when the bail applications of the persons involved in serious offences are rejected, they manage to obtain medical certificates and seek for their release on health ground and relying upon the doctors report Courts usually exercise discretion and grant them bail. This is exactly what has happened in the present case. ( 10 ) SO far as Prasanta Mohapatra - Opposite party No. 1 is concerned, it may be stated that he could manage to get himself admitted in V. S. S. Medical College Hospital and thereafter in AIIMS, New Delhi. He once visited AIIMS and was first treated as out-door patient on 15-3-1996 and 20-3- 1996. He was admitted as an indoor patient on 31-3-1996 and was discharged on 7-4-1996. According to the doctor he was having stone in left side kidney and besides he was suffering from bronchial asthma with hypertension. After 7-4-1996 he never visited AIIMS nor even was treated by any local doctor. As has been stated earlier he is in active politics and has been elected as a Ward Member of Hirakud N. A. C. I am, therefore, of the firm opinion that such medical reports were procured and filed in the Court in order to secure his release on bail. ( 11 ) APART from what has been stated above, another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the material witnesses including the police officials who are alleged to have witnessed the assault on the deceased did not support the prosecution case during trial, and the grievance of the petitioner that opposite parties 1 and 2 being influential persons gained over the witnesses by exercising their influence cannot be overlooked. ( 12 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where bail granted to opposite parties 1 and 2 should be cancelled. ( 12 ) HAVING given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that this is a fit case where bail granted to opposite parties 1 and 2 should be cancelled. Accordingly, I cancel their bail and direct the Superintendent of Police, Sambalpur, to arrest them and produce before the learned court below who is in sessions of the matter and on their production they be remanded to jail custody till conclusion of the trial. Petition allowed.