JUDGMENT Heard. By moving application (M.Cr.P. 806/2001) the complainant wants cancellation of theinterim bail granted in favour of the applicant whereas the appellant has prayed for confirmation of the interim bail. Having heard the two sides at length the order granting interim bail deserves to be confirmed. Deceased Raghunandan and Virendra are real cousins. Ram Rani, mother of the deceased Virendra is an eye-witness who lodged the F.L.R. wherein the applicant Durg Singh was not mentioned· amongst the assailants. After investigation, the prosecution filed charge-sheet and applicant Durg Singh has been listed as an eye-witness. He also happens to be the close relation of the deceased. It is after 6-7 months that mother of the deceased Raghunandan filed a private complaint making allegations against the applicant besides others for having committed murder of her son. According to the F.L.R. lodged by Ram Rani, mother of the deceased, it is a different set of accused persons who were responsible for the murder of Virendra and Raghunandan. This set of accused persons included Rajendra, real brother of deceased Raghunandan. Now the mother of deceased Raghunandan wants to say in her complaint that wife of deceased Raghunandan had affairs with present applicant Durg Singh and she was instrumental in getting her husband murdered. On the other side wife of the deceased Raghunandan is a prosecution witness in the case filed by the police. It is to be noticed that the case filed by present complainant is likely to badly damage the prosecution case filed by the police because it has completely changed the place of occurrence and story. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that it has deliberately been done so as to save accused Rajendra and his son. We are not concerned with this at this· stage but it cannot be overlooked that the complainant has brought altogether a new story after 6-7 months of the incident and after sufficient number of witnesses had already been examined during trial arising out of the police case. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported respondent no. 2 arguing that since the Court found prima facie case against the applicant, bail granted earlier should not be confirmed. Learned counsel appearing for the State supported respondent no. 2 arguing that since the Court found prima facie case against the applicant, bail granted earlier should not be confirmed. Without commenting on the merits at this stage but keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of the case and the position and role assigned to the applicant Durg Singh in the case filed by the police and thereafter by the complainant in the present case, the order granting interim bail earlier is confirmed, the bail shall continue till conclusion of trial. As a result M.Cr.P. 806/2001 stands dismissed.