P. K. TRIPATHY, J. ( 1 ) THE daughter and the grandson of the deceased Judhistir Das have filed this application under Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. with a prayer for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of opposite party No. 1, Fakir Gouda, who is an accused in M. Rampur, P. S. Case No. 70/97. The offence alleged against opposite party No. 1 and co-accused is under Section 302/34, IPC. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS have alleged that in spite of existence of a prima facie case against opp. party No. 1 learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi-Nawapara at Shawanipatna, without due consideration of the materials available in the case diary and on recording wrong findings that no prima-facie evidence was available against opp. party No. 1, allowed him to go on bail. They have further stated that after being released on bail, opp. party No. 1 on 23-10-97 threatened the petitioners as well as the witnesses to terrorise them so as to not to depose against him. ( 3 ) NO show cause was filed by opp. party No. 1 though he received notice and entered appearance. However, rejoinder was filed on his behalf supported by an affidavit filed by the Advocate's Clerk wherein the aforesaid allegations levelled in the petition, have been denied on behalf of opp. party No. 1 with a prayer to reject the petition under Section. 439 (2), Cr. P. C. ( 4 ) LEARNED Addl. Standing Counsel supporting the contentions of the petitioners regarding existence of prima facie case against opp. party No. 1, so far as offence under S. 302, I. P. C. is concerned, filed the enquiry report of the O. I. C. , M. Rampur Police Station relating to the allegations of overtact dtd. 27-10-97 alleged by the petitioners. ( 5 ) AT the time of hearing opp. party No. 1 did not participate. 5-A. Reiterating the aforesaid contentions stated in the petition learned counsel for petitioners argued that not only learned Sessions Judge allowed the bail application without due and proper application of mind to the materials in the case diary but also after being so released on bail opp. party No. 1 has shown his high-handedness with attempt to tamper with the evidence in terrorising the informant and the other witnesses which is apparent from the enquiry report of the O. I. C. Learned Addl. party No. 1 has shown his high-handedness with attempt to tamper with the evidence in terrorising the informant and the other witnesses which is apparent from the enquiry report of the O. I. C. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel supporting the aforesaid contention, however, stated that in the enquiry conducted on the allegations of the petitioners and one of the witnesses in the case, namely, Banbas Sabar of Risida, the S. I. of Police, during the course of enquiry found the complainants supporting the allegations whereas some other villagers denied about opp. Party No. 1 having gone to the village on that date and that it is stated in that report that as per the directions of the sessions Judge as a condition in the bail order, opp. party No. 1 is not coming to the village in question i. e. Risida. So far as that contention of the learned Addl. Standing Counsel is concerned, which he read from the police report, learned counsel for petitioners argued that the police officer without making a proper enquiry and verification of documents has given such opinion which is incorrect on the face of the order of bail dt. 20-9-1997 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 134/97. 5-B. Taking into due consideration of the aforesaid contention and after perusal of the order dt. 20-9-97 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 134/97 this Court finds that no condition of not coming to the occurrance village was imposed on opp. party No. 1. Thus, to that extent the criticism against police report advanced by the learned counsel for petitioners is found to be correct. It is further noticed from the police report that though the informant of the station diary entry supported the allegation, but some villagers stated that opp. party No. 1 had not come to the village. The names of those villagers have not been reflected in the enquiry report. Therefore, no importance can be given to that part of the opinion of the police officer. At the same time the said police officer namely; Sri S. K. Jena, Sub-Inspector of Police, M. Rampur P. S. is cautioned not to conduct enquiry in a superficial manner as he did in the instant case. This part of the observations be intimated to the said police officer and to the concerned superintendent of Police for information and future guidance. This part of the observations be intimated to the said police officer and to the concerned superintendent of Police for information and future guidance. While enquiring into a serious allegation of attempt by an accused to tamper with the evidence, the police officer must be cautious enough to find out the truth so that proper justice can be administered and neither party should be victimised because of the whimsical or superficial enquiry. Barring the aforesaid deficiency in the enquiry report it appears from the said enquiry that the complainants supported the allegations of giving threatening by opp. party No. 1 to terrorise them. ( 6 ) ON perusal of the order of the learned Sessions Judge, it is found that without taking into consideration the relevant facts and evidence, he disposed of the bail application whimsically by allowing the applications of one of the two accused persons, both of whom had applied for bail. The relevant portion of that part of the order is quoted as hereunder :-"the learned Associate P. P. submitted that from the case diary and the statement under Section 161, Cr. P. C. at present there is some material against the petitioner accused Pitambar Goud and formally objected the bail petition. On perusal of the record and the case diary, it is found that there is some prima-facie evidence against the petitioner Pitambar Goud. In view of the above facts and circumstances and taking into consideration the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is ordered that let the petitioner No. 1 Phakira Goud be enlarged on bail. . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IT is true that at the time of consideration of the prayer for bail under Section 439, Cr. P. C. it is not required for the Sessions Judge to make detailed documentation in support of or against the prayer for bail. Nonetheless, it is his duty to apply his mind to the material in the case diary and to record the reasonings in substance about existence or non-existence of prima facie case. While dealing with an accused booked for a grievous and heinous offence like murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he should also consider other attendant circumstances and bail application should not be disposed of so casually and carelessly, as has been done in this case. While dealing with an accused booked for a grievous and heinous offence like murder, which is punishable with death or imprisonment for life, he should also consider other attendant circumstances and bail application should not be disposed of so casually and carelessly, as has been done in this case. Under such circumstances the impugned order of bail granted in favour of the opposite party No. 1 is not sustainable being illegally granted without due application of mind to the fact and evidence available in the record. However, this Court has refrained from discussing about prima facie case or making any comment on the merit of the case vis-a-vis the prayer for bail of the accused persons, inasmuch as, the bail order as noted above, has been found non-sustainable because of non-perusal of C. D. and non-consideration of facts and evidence and the other attendant circumstances hence if the opposite party No. 1 shall surrender and renew his prayer for bail, the same may be considered on its own merit and any observation made may prejudicially affect either of the parties. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion and findings, bail granted to opp. party No. 1 in Crl. Misc. Case No. 134/97 vide order dtd. 20-9-97 is cancelled under Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. and it is directed that opp. party No. 1 shall surrender to his bail within a period of one month hence. However, after surrendering, opp. party No. 1, if so desires, may apply for bail afresh and in that event learned Sessions Judge shall dispose of the bail application in accordance with law, but after due considerations of facts and evidence and other attendant circumstances. If opposite party No. 1 shall not surrender within the above dead line, then coercive measure in accordance with law may be taken to secure his attendance and in that case his application for bail may not at all be entertained. ( 9 ) THE Crl. Misc. case is allowed accordingly. Application allowed.