JUDGMENT : R.K. Dash, J. - This is a suo motu proceeding for cancellation of bail of the opposite parties, accused in a double murder case. 2. The prosecution case, as set out in the F.I.R., is that on 7.8.97 at about 8.00 p.m. the opposite parties and Ors. assaulted the deceased Akshay Behera and his wife, as a result, they succumbed to their injuries. On a report being lodged, a case u/s 302, Indian Penal Code was registered by the Officer-in-charge of Bhandaripokhari P.S. and investigation commenced. These two opposite parties moved the Court below for their release and the same having been rejected, they approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, who by ordered dated 8.12.91, allowed their prayer and released them on bail. In paragraph 4 of the order the learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned the reasons for exercising discretion in favour of the opposite parties that they are in custody for about three months, i.e. since 13.8.97 and as stated by the witnesses in their statements during investigation, they were only present at the place of incident holding lathis and that death to the lady deceased was caused by the main accused Rajib Behera in an axe (Katari). 3. In course of hearing, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitting that this being a case of double murder, the injuries caused to the male deceased was not taken into account by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while admitting the opposite parties to bail. He further urged that a close scrutiny of the materials on record prima facie shows that these opposite parties and Ors. in furtherance of their common intention assaulted both the deceased mercilessly with lethal weapons held by them and threw the dead bodies into river Baitarani. In course of investigation though the dead body of the lady deceased could be recovered, but the corpus delicti of the male deceased could not be traced out. The postmortem report of the lady deceased reveals that she received 3 injuries and according to the opinion of the doctor each injury independently could cause the death. By referring to the statements of witnesses Nrusimha Nayak and Ramesh Chandra Behera recorded during investigation he urged that the opposite parties have been attributed to have taken part in the assault to both the deceased along with others. By referring to the statements of witnesses Nrusimha Nayak and Ramesh Chandra Behera recorded during investigation he urged that the opposite parties have been attributed to have taken part in the assault to both the deceased along with others. Without taking the same into consideration the learned Additional Sessions Judge made a sweeping observation in paragraph 4 of the order that the witnesses in their statements to the police stated that the opposite parties were merely present at the scene of occurrence holding lathis and that the death of the lady deceased was caused by the main accused Rajia Behera with the help of a Katari. Had he scrutinised the statements of the witnesses to find out culpability of the opposite parties, their prayer for bail would have been rejected. Lastly he contended that when the materials implicating the opposite parties were overlooked and discretion was exercised arbitrarily in their favour, this Court having supervisory power would be well within its jurisdiction to cancel the bail granted to them. Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure under the caption 'Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail' confers wide power upon both the Courts to grant bail to a person who is an accused of offence and in custody. This is a discretionary power unfettered by restrictions of any kind, but then, the same should be exercised judiciously and on well established principles. While dealing with an application for bail nature and seriousness of the crime, its social impact and the character of the accused are some of the considerations which would weigh in the mind of the Court while deciding whether bail should be granted or not. In a case like the present one, where the Court failed to take note of the gravity of the offences as well as the materials implicating the accused in the incident and granted bail, it cannot be said that the High Court is denuded of power to cancel the bail. If a view is taken that once bail is granted the same cannot be cancelled, unless the conditions as laid down in various judicial pronouncements arc satisfied, then an illegal order passed by the Magistrate in a heinous offence cannot be cancelled either by the Sessions Court or High Court. Such a view has no sanction under law. If a view is taken that once bail is granted the same cannot be cancelled, unless the conditions as laid down in various judicial pronouncements arc satisfied, then an illegal order passed by the Magistrate in a heinous offence cannot be cancelled either by the Sessions Court or High Court. Such a view has no sanction under law. Superior Courts cannot helplessly approve the order of the Magistrate illegally admitting a person accused of a gruesome crime to bail. Having gone through the materials available on record and keeping in mind the nature and seriousness of the crime and alleged involvement of the opposite parties in the assault to both the deceased with lethal weapons, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case where bail granted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak should be cancelled. 4. Accordingly it is ordered that bail granted to the opposite parties by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadrak, in G.R. Case No. 940 of 1997 pending on the file of the S.D.J.M., Bhadrak, is hereby cancelled. Steps be taken for their apprehension.