JUDGMENT 1. - Heard. This is an application under section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents Ghariba and Vinod on 6.7.1999 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dholpur in Sessions Case No. 99/98. The above named respondents, along with the co-accused in the case were alleged to have 5 caused death of the deceased and simple and grievous hurt with sharp and blunt weapons to a number of prosecution witnesses. Thrice, the learned Additional Sessions judge had himself declined to admit the respondents to bail. This Court too had refused bail to them vide its order dated 1.9.98 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4373/98 Smt. Santro and ors. v. State of Rajasthan . 2. The IVth application for bail was moved before the learned trial Judge after his recording the statement of three eye-witnesses. Although the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the said application, particularly on the ground that both the respondents had been attributed active participation in the vigant incident and specific injuries were caused by them on vital part of the body of the deceased and that as many as nine injured witnesses were there to be examined but on appreciation of the testimony of the three eye-witnesses who has already been examined by them, the learned trial Judge, in his discretion, thought it proper to release the applicant on bail. 3. I heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the relevant material as was placed before me. 4. In criminal trials bail is the rule and denial thereof an exception. Once an accused has been admitted to bail, the concession granted to him should not ordinarily be cancelled unless there are very cogent and sound reasons to do so. Generally, the conduct and behaviour of the accused after his release on bail, like threatening the prosecution witnesses, tempering with the prosecution evidence, interfering with the smooth course of trial etc. etc. are to be considered at the time of withdrawing the concession of bail granted to the accused. Generally, the conduct and behaviour of the accused after his release on bail, like threatening the prosecution witnesses, tempering with the prosecution evidence, interfering with the smooth course of trial etc. etc. are to be considered at the time of withdrawing the concession of bail granted to the accused. However, in exceptional cases the gravity of the offence allegedly committed by the accused, the facts and circumstances attending on the order of grant of bail may justify the withdrawal or cancellation of the concession granted, if the trial of an accused has commenced and it is likely to be completed within reasonable time and grant of bail to him has not been considered proper, then grant of such concession to him in the course of progress of the trial should not be considered proper unless it is noticed by the trial court that all the material evidence which has relied upon by the prosecution for the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence, he is being tried for, had failed lo incriminate him and connect him with the crime. This principle should ordinarily be adhered to when the charge against the accused is for a grave offence. Granting bail to an accused at the intermediate point of time after recording a part of incriminating evidence may exhibit the very approach of the judge to the wroth and value of the prosecution evidence and the entire case of the prosecution at that pre-mature stage and that is not proper to be done at that stage of the proceedings. 5. In the instant case, Mukesh, Badami and Smt. Santo co - accused had no doubt been admitted to bail but such fact had been considered by this Court while refusing bail to the respondent on 1.9.98. The learned trial Judge had himself earlier rejected their bail application thrice and the trial had commenced. Only three witnesses had been examined and as many as nice injured witnesses were yet to be examined. Even the three witnesses who had been examined had told the participation of the respondents in the assault on the deceased and the injured witnesses. Ghariba respondent was alleged to have struck the deceased on head with a stone and Vinod with a Ballam (spear) using the same as a Lathi. Even the three witnesses who had been examined had told the participation of the respondents in the assault on the deceased and the injured witnesses. Ghariba respondent was alleged to have struck the deceased on head with a stone and Vinod with a Ballam (spear) using the same as a Lathi. After having considered the weapons alleged to have been used by the respondents against the deceased and the prosecution witnesses and the nature of injuries sustained by them this Court Court had refused bail to the respondent. Appreciating the testimony of the three witnesses, as received at the trial, with reference to their statements recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. in the course of investigation and then to express the opinion that the testimony of the three witnesses was of doubtful character was not at all proper on the part of the learned trial Judge at that stage of the proceedings. Expression of opinion on the worth and value of the evidence of either party at a stage when other incriminating evidence was yet to come on record could have adversely affected the case of the other party and that is not advisable to be done in the course of the progress of the trial, particularly when it is a sessions trial for a very grave offence. Sessions trials, despite the provision contained in Section 326 Cr.PC. are still required and expected to be heard on day to day basis and, therefore, consideration of the prayer of bail at an intermediary stage in such trials would not lay down a healthy practice and procedure of the court in the conduct of trials for heinous offences. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of this case, the learned trial Judge was not justified in e releasing Ghariba and Vinod co-accused on bail at that stage of the proceedings. His order, besides being unmerited on the facts of the case, is also likely to convey wrong message to the litigant public. The same is required to be and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to Ghariba and Vinod accused vide impugned order is hereby cancelled. The learned trial Judge is directed to cause the above named two accused arrested and to commit them to judicial custody. He is further directed to expedite the disposal of the case. 7. The same is required to be and is hereby set aside. Consequently, the bail granted to Ghariba and Vinod accused vide impugned order is hereby cancelled. The learned trial Judge is directed to cause the above named two accused arrested and to commit them to judicial custody. He is further directed to expedite the disposal of the case. 7. This order shall be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for his kind perusal.Bail cancelled. *******