T. SURYA RAO, J. ( 1 ) IN as much as all these petitions arise out of the same case and as common questions of law and fact are involved, all these petitions can be disposed of together. ( 2 ) THE petitioners herein are the accused in Crime No. 475 of 2001 of Alwal Police station. These petitioners are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under sections 409 and 420 of the Indian Penal code, under Section 5 of A. P, Protection of depositors of Financial Establishments act 1999 and under Section 138 of the negotiable Instruments Act. These petitioners approached the Sessions Court of Ranga Reddy District seeking bail, they having been arrested by the Investigating officer in connection with the said crime on different dates. Except A-11 in the crime all other petitioners were arrested on 11-01-2002. A-ll was arrested on 19-01-2002. The learned Sessions Judge by separate orders granted bails to these petitioners on the condition of the petitioners each executing a bond for Rs. 2 lakhs with two sureties for a like sum each to the satisfaction of the Judicial magistrate of First Class, Medchal. A condition has been imposed by the learned sessions Judge directing the petitioners to appear before the Station House Officer, alwal Police Station, on every alternate day from 01-02-2002 onwards and further they shall not in any manner alienate encumber their personal properties as well as the properties of the Bank. Having been aggrieved by the bond amount fixed by the learned Sessions Judge on the premise that it is onerous, all these petitioners approached this Court seeking modification of the same. ( 3 ) AFTER having heard these petitions, this court directed show cause notices to be issued to the petitioners as to why the bails granted to them shall not be cancelled, suo motu. Pursuant to the said notices, the accused 1, 3, 4, 5, and 7 filed a counter. The other accused have not chosen to file any counter and they have adopted the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel appearing for the accused 1, 3,4,5, and 7. ( 4 ) IT is averred, inter alia, in the counter that they were arrested on 05-01-2002; and that they were not informed about the reason for their arrest. Nor they were allowed to meet their relatives. ( 4 ) IT is averred, inter alia, in the counter that they were arrested on 05-01-2002; and that they were not informed about the reason for their arrest. Nor they were allowed to meet their relatives. The relatives of A-1 when got issued telegrams to all the concerned, the Inspector of Police, Alwal police Station, produced the accused on 11-01-2002 before the Judicial Magistrate of first Class, Medchal. It is further averred that originally three crimes were registered in Crime Nos. 475,485 and 503 of 2001 and the remand was sought in respect all the three crimes and on an objection taken by the court the Police struck off FIRs in Crime nos. 485 and 503 of 2001 from the cause title of the remand report and remand was sought only in respect of Crime No. 475 of 2001. Accordingly they were remanded to judicial custody till 25-01-2002. The bail applications filed by thembef ore the Sessions Court stood posted to 19-01-2002. In the meanwhile on 19-01-2002 the Police produced the accused before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, medchal, in connection with the other two crimes No. 485 and 503 of 2001 and again they were remanded by the learned magistrate for a period of 14 days. The accused also filed bail petitions before the sessions Court in respect of the other two crimes also. They were heard together on 30-1-2002 and on the same day bails were granted to all the accused. It is further averred in the counter that on 25-01-2002 the investigating Officer did not seek any extension of remand from 25-01-2002 in crime No. 475 of 2001, However, the learned magistrate extended the remand for a further period of 14 days. That was also taken as one of the grounds before the Sessions Court while seeking bail. It is the case of the respondents further that they are all law abiding citizens and they had no intention to cheat any of the depositors. Inasmuch as the bank premises were seized and sealed, the accused could no way interfere with the investigation process. They never misused their liberty and they have been complying with the conditions imposed by the learned sessions Judge. On the above grounds,, the petitioners request to permit them to continue on bail pending investigation, enquiry and trial. Inasmuch as the bank premises were seized and sealed, the accused could no way interfere with the investigation process. They never misused their liberty and they have been complying with the conditions imposed by the learned sessions Judge. On the above grounds,, the petitioners request to permit them to continue on bail pending investigation, enquiry and trial. ( 5 ) A perusal of the case diary shows that a-1 to A-15 in the crime started the banking business under the name and style of "praja Co-operative Urban Bank Limited" on 04-08-2001 with the permission of the reserve Bank of India in Hasmathpet, Alwal. All the accused are said to have conspired together and collected huge amounts from various depositors in a sum of about rs. 2 crores offering high interest rates than allowable by the otherbanks and institutions. The accused while doing business deviated from the rules and regulations of the Reserve bank of India without any comprehensive loan policy including the necessary rules in regard thereto. They sanctioned loans on benami names to their friends, relatives and have not obtained the required security and capital surety from the borrowers to assess their credit worthiness and re-paying capacity. The accused also failed to take precautionary steps to provide security to the amounts of the public and thus they misappropriated the amount and cheated the innocent depositors. The amount of fraud estimated at Rs. 2 crores is not an end in itself. There are various other depositors who have deposited their amounts in the bank and they have to be traced and examined. The investigation is in progress. It is the apprehension of the Investigating Agency that if the accused are released on bail, they might tamper the evidence and the steps to get their properties attached would be thwarted. ( 6 ) NOTWITHSTANDING the said objections, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to these petitioners, who are A-l to A-11 in the crime only on the premise that inasmuch as the entire business books and records pertainingtoprajaco-operativeurbanbank limited were already seized and were lying with the Investigating Agency, it could not be said that in the event of their release they might tamper the evidence or interfere with the investigation; and that among the accused a-8 is said tobe a lady and, therefore, keeping the accused any longer in judicial custody would not serve any purpose. The learned judge obviously has not considered the requisite criteria for granting or refusing to grant bail except the one assigned by him, inter alia, in his order. ( 7 ) IN Prahlad Singh Bhati v. N. C. T. , Delhi the Apex Court in para 8 laid down the criteria for granting bail thus:"the jurisdiction to grant bail has to be exercised on the basis of well settled principles having regard to the circumstances of each case and not in an arbitrary manner. While granting the bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character, behaviour means and standing of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witness being tampered with, the larger interests of the public or State and similar other considerations. "the above indicia are only illustrative. Among them, the nature of accusation and the larger interests of the public and State are the two important considerations. ( 8 ) THE Investigating Of ficer has expressed his apprehension that on an initial assessment the fraud involved is more than Rs. 2 crores; and that the other depositors who are the residents in and around Twin Cities and other areas shall have to be traced and enquired into in which event the extent of fraud might further mount up and as steps are to be taken to get the properties of the accused attached and, therefore, it is not expedient to release the accused who would tamper with the evidence. From the facts/ it is discernible that the fraud involves not merely the amount of Rs. 2 crores and it would escalate if the various other investors are traced out and examined. In this context, i am of the considered view that it is not totally out of place to bear in mind that several of the Co-operative Banks are being closed all of a sudden leaving the investors and the depositors high and dry and to roam around the banks. Therefore, greater public interest is involved in these types of cases. There is no security for the depositors who deposited their hard earned monies. Therefore, greater public interest is involved in these types of cases. There is no security for the depositors who deposited their hard earned monies. The fact that the greater rate of interest has been offered than the rate of interest being usually paid by the other nationalised banks and reputed institutions and benami loans have been granted in utter disregard to the norms issued by the Reserve Bank of India constitutes the necessary indicia which buttress the case of the prosecution and that the element of cheating is prima facie discernible. Under these circumstances, the consideration viz. larger interests of public or State gains any amount of significance. ( 9 ) INASMUCH as the learned Sessions Judge has considered only one ground, namely, that it could not be said that in the event of the petitioners release on bail they might tamper the evidence as all the records and books pertaining to the Praja Co-operative urban Bank Limited and as he failed to consider the other criteria more particularly the nature of the accusation and the larger interests of the public and State, I am of the considered view that in view of the facts peculiar to this case, it is not at all a fit case where the petitioners deserve at that stage pending investigation any indulgence from the Court for granting bail. ( 10 ) WHAT are the grounds for cancellation of bail is the next moot question. In Puran v, rambilas the Apex Court held in para 9 thus:"it has been held that generally speaking the grounds for cancellation of bail broadly are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. It is, however, to be noted that this Court has clarified that these instances are merely illustrative and not exhaustive. One such ground for cancellation of bail would be where ignoring material And evidence on record a perverse order granting bail is passed in a heinous crime of this nature and that too without giving any reasons. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. Such an order would be against principles of law. Interest of justice would also require that such a perverse order be set aside and bail be cancelled. It mustbe remembered that such offences are on the rise and have a very serious impact on the Society. Therefore, an arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion by the trial Court has to be corrected. " (Emphasis is mine) ( 11 ) IT is obvious from the Judgment of the apex Court herein above excerpted that the bail order passed oblivious of the material and evidence on record, regardless of the seriousness of the crime tantamount to an order passed against the principles of law and that constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of bail. ( 12 ) AS discussed by me supra, the learned sessions Judge ignored the greater interest of the public. He has also failed to consider the apprehension of the Investigating Agency that there is every possibility of the accused tampering the evidence inasmuch as several other depositors, who are the residents of the twin Cities and other areas, have to be traced and examined to unearth the greater fraud and steps are to be taken to get the properties of the accused attached and the investigation process would be hampered if the accused are released on bail and the public interest would be seriously jeopardized. The offence of this sort is on the rise in twin Cities as discussed by me supra. In my considered view, the order is not in accordance with the principles of law and against the public interest. Therefore, the wrong exercise of discretion requires to be corrected. Before parting with, it may be mentioned that it is surprising as to why the case has not attracted the attention of the State Government. Indeed, the case requires investigation by a special agency. ( 13 ) FOR the foregoing reasons the bail granted to the petitioners herein is hereby cancelled and the petitioners herein shall surrender before the Court forthwith. In sequel thereto, the petitions filed seeking reduction of the bond amounts stand dismissed.