JUDGEMENT M. R. Verma, J. (Oral).: - This is an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to the respondents 2 to 7 (hereinafter referred to as the accused persons) in a case under Sections 302, 147 and 148 I.P.C. registered" vide FIR No. 13/2000, on the ground that the petitioner, wife of the victim, is under constant pressure and threat from the accused-persons, the fact which she had reported by a written application to the concerned Station House Officer also. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and the learned counsel for the accused-persons and have also gone through the material papers placed on the record. 3. The accused persons amongst others are accused of the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 302,147,148 I.P.C. and are presently on bail granted to them by the learned Sessions Judge, Solan. The learned Sessions Judge while granting the bail observed that out of the bail-petitioners before her six were females one of whom was pregnant and others had minor children at home. Almost all the adult members of their families have been involved in the crime as per the prosecution case leaving behind unattended catties and children, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found it proper to release the accused-persons on bail subject to the conditions that they would join investigation if required by the police and shall not threaten, dissuade or intimidate the prosecution witnesses and will not leave the local jurisdiction of Solan District without written permission of the Investigating Officer/SHO concerned. The male accused in the case are presently stated to be in custody. 4. It appears that the learned Sessions Judge had directed release of the accused-persons on bail in view of the provisions of Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which incorporates special provision in respect of a person under 16 years of age, a woman or a sick or infirm person and also keeping in view the fact that all the adult members of the family of the accused persons were in custody in the case., and there was none to look after their young children and cattle and one of the accused was pregnant. 5. 5. It is not the case before me that considerations which weighed with the learned Sessions Judge in granting the bail to the accused-persons have now ceased to exist, therefore, the discretion of releasing the accused person on bail exercised by the learned Sessions Judge in accordance with the provisions of law and the circumstances of the case in the ordinary course does not call for interference by this Court. 6. It has been averred that the petitioner is under pressure and threat from the accused persons. The material averments in this regard have been made in para 3 of the application. However, it has not been specified therein as to what is intended by such pressure and threats. It is not alleged that the accused-persons are persuading or threatening the petitioner not to support the prosecution case. Similarly a perusal of Annexure P-l (Copy of complaint) addressed to the Station House Officer, Kandaghat by the application does not make the averments that the applicant is being threatened or pressurised not to support the prosecution version. What is mentioned in the said Annexure is that the petitioner is getting threatening telephone calls at the house of he brother in Shimla where she is staying. The application Annexure P-l does not even complain that such telephonic calls are being made by the accused persons but are admittedly made by the villagers. If so, for threats given by the villagers accused persons cannot be deprived of the bail which has already been granted to them. 7. Be it stated that the alleged threat had already been reported to the police. However, on the basis of the application made by the petitioner, the State has not taken steps for cancellation of the bad of the accused-persons. If so, when the State which is prosecuting the case against the accused-persons is not taking steps for cancellation of the bail of the accused-persons, the version as contained in the application itself is rendered unreliable and may be an act of vengence. Thus, no trustworthy circumstance has been brought en record to indicate that the accused-persons are tampering with the prosecution evidence/witnesses, nor there is any allegation that they had caused dis-appearance of any evidence or have violated any of the conditions of the bail. 8. Thus, no trustworthy circumstance has been brought en record to indicate that the accused-persons are tampering with the prosecution evidence/witnesses, nor there is any allegation that they had caused dis-appearance of any evidence or have violated any of the conditions of the bail. 8. In view of the above I am of the view that no case is made out for cancellation of the bail as already granted to the accused-persons. 9. As a result, the present application merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed