Judgment 1. This application by petitioner has been filed for cancellation of regular bail granted to opposite party No. 2 Kishore Singh by Sessions Judge, Gopalganj by his order dated 22-10-2001 passed in Bail Petition No. 611 of 2001/42 of 2001 arising out of Uchkagaon Police Station Case No. 86 of 2001 under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 307 and 302, Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the petitioner in short is that on 10-8-2001 at about 7 p.m., opposite party No. 2 along with others named in first information report (Annexure-1), forming an unlawful assembly and variously armed with lathi, bhala, katta (countrymade pistol), knife, came to the house of petitioner and started indiscriminately assaulting him and his family members. Opposite party No. 2 inflicted knife injury on the neck of father of informant as a result of which he died at the spot and he also inflicted knife injury on the back of informant. Other co-accused persons assaulted mother, wife, cousin, wife of cousin, daughters of cousin of informant. About the motive of occurrence, petitioner stated that opposite party No. 2 and other co-accused persons are his neighbours and a dispute between him and them was going on in respect of a passage and a case is also pending between the parties for that. 3. The petitioner, observing the attitude of Investigating Officer and manner of investigation of case, filed protest petition on 30-8-2001 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj. On 20-9-2001, opposite party No. 2 and co-accused Angad Singh surrendered before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gopalganj and prayed for bail but their prayer was rejected. Thereafter they, on 24-9-2001 moved the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj for grant of regular bail and their petition for bail was numbered as Bail Petition No. 611 of 2001 and their bail petition was transferred to the Court of IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj where it was numbered as Bail Petition No. 42 of 2001. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj heard the bail petition and called for case diary fixing 19-10-2001 but on 19-10-2001, at the prayer on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and co-accused Angad Singh, the case was adjourned to 22-10-2001. The IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Gopalganj heard the bail petition and called for case diary fixing 19-10-2001 but on 19-10-2001, at the prayer on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and co-accused Angad Singh, the case was adjourned to 22-10-2001. In the meantime, another co-accused Ram Pratap Pandit moved the Sessions Judge, Gopalganj for grant of bail and his petition was numbered as Bail Petition No. 668 of 2001 which was kept by the learned Sessions Judge in his personal file and he called for case diary fixing 19-10-2001 but when case diary was not received on 19-10-2001, the Sessions Judge fixed this bail petition on 22-10-2001. The further case of the petitioner is that the Courts were closed from 22-10-2001 to 22-11-2001 for annual vacation and between this period, the learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj held Court for only one day on 22-10-2001 as Judge-Incharge, vacation and he disposed of Bail Petition No. 611 of 2001/42 of 2001 and Bail Petition No. 668 of 2001 and granted bail to opposite party No. 2 and co-accused Angad Singh and Ram Pratap Singh. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge ignored to consider the specific allegation against opposite party No. 2 that he inflicted fatal injury on the person of deceased causing his death at the spot and by taking into consideration some minor and natural contradictions in the statements of witnesses examined during investigation, granted bail to opposite party No. 2. It has also been stated that opposite party No. 2 is a desperate man and has formed a group of antisocial elements and is intimidating and threatening the prosecution witnesses of dire consequences in case they support the prosecution case. Petitioner has prayed for cancellation of bail granted to opposite party No. 2 submitting that in case he is allowed to remain on bail, he will tamper with the evidence and spoil the prosecution case. 5. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared through his lawyer and has opposed the prayer of petitioner for cancellation of his bail. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 6. 5. Opposite party No. 2 has appeared through his lawyer and has opposed the prayer of petitioner for cancellation of his bail. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of opposite party No. 2. 6. From perusal of impugned order, I find that the learned Sessions Judge first considered the inquest report mentioned in para-5 of case diary according to which deceased had sustained injuries on his left chest and below armpit and the cause of death was injuries caused by firearm and knife. The learned Sessions Judge, comparing this inquest report with the first information report of informant, observed that in the first information report. it is mentioned that opposite party No. 2 assaulted the deceased with knife on his neck whereas Investigating Officer did not find any injury on the neck of deceased rather he found injuries caused by firearm and in first information report, there was no allegation of use of any firearm. At last part of order, the learned Sessions Judge has mentioned post mortem examination report, stated in para-66 of case diary showing that the doctor conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, had found two incised anti mortem injuries on the person of deceased on left side of chest and left armpit. There he did not mention that doctor had not found any injury caused by firearm. The petitioner, in his petition, has stated that the doctor who conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased, had found an incised wound 2" x 1" chest cavity deep situated at lest side and upper part of front of chest besides an incised wound 2" x 1/2" situated on left anterior auxiliary border. Admittedly, police officer is not a medical expert but the learned Sessions Judge gave much importance to the opinion of police officer expressed while preparing inquest report that injuries found on the body of deceased were caused by firearm and knife whereas no firearm injury on the dead body was found by the doctor. I further find that the learned Sessions Judge, thereafter considering in details the statement of each and every witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, pointed out some differences in their statements which he considered major contradictions. I further find that the learned Sessions Judge, thereafter considering in details the statement of each and every witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, pointed out some differences in their statements which he considered major contradictions. Such differences include that some witnesses in their statements stated that accused persons were armed with knife, farsa but in first information report, there is no mention of farsa, some witnesses have not stated that on which part of the body of deceased, knife injuries were inflicted etc. Similarly, the learned Sessions Judge has pointed out some minor contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded under Sec. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure and he has observed that there is no consistency in the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation as well as under Sec. 164, Code of Criminal Procedure. His order further shows that almost all the witnesses, whose statements have been recorded during the course of investigation and who claimed to be eye witnesses to the occurrence, stated that opposite party No. 2 had inflicted knife injuries on deceased as a result of which deceased died. Merely on the basis of the fact that in first information report, it is stated that opposite party No. 2 inflicted knife injury on the neck of deceased whereas doctor found knife injury on the upper part of left side of chest, I do not find that it was such a major contradiction to discard the medical evidence which supported the case of prosecution that deceased died of knife injuries which was supported by the statement of witnesses examined during the course of investigation. The order of learned Sessions Judge runs in fifteen pages and in this order, the Sessions Judge has considered the statements of almost all witnesses recorded under Sec. 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and by comparing their statements, has tried to point out contradictions in their statements. The order of learned Sessions Judge runs in fifteen pages and in this order, the Sessions Judge has considered the statements of almost all witnesses recorded under Sec. 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and by comparing their statements, has tried to point out contradictions in their statements. The petitioner, in his petition, has also stated that from the impugned order, which is a very long order, it appears that the learned Sessions Judge, acting as Judge-Incharge Vacation, has heavily relied upon some minor and natural contradictions in the statements of witnesses and it appears that he was holding a regular trial and writing a judgment in the main case and he did not consider the specific allegation against opposite party No. 2 of inflicting fatal injury to deceased who died at the spot. I find substance in this submission of petitioner. 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No. 2, relying upon a decision reported in the case of Aslam Babalal Desai V/s. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1 , has submitted that grounds, for cancellation of bail under S. 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure, are where accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, interferes with the course of investigation, attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses, threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency and attempts to place him beyond the reach of his surety. It is true that the Apex Court has laid down the aforesaid grounds for cancellation of bail under Sec. 439(2), Code of Criminal Procedure but at the same time, it has also observed that the aforesaid grounds are illustrative and not exhaustive and it has further observed that the cancellation of bail must not be lightly resorted to because it interferes with the liberty of the individual. 8. From the aforesaid principle, it cannot be said that, except for the grounds mentioned above, bail of accused cannot be cancelled. 8. From the aforesaid principle, it cannot be said that, except for the grounds mentioned above, bail of accused cannot be cancelled. The present case is such a case in which there is specific allegation against opposite party No. 2 for inflicting injuries to deceased with knife and as per first information report and statements of witnesses, the deceased died at the spot because of such injuries and this is supported by medical evidence. Normally, in such cases bail is not granted by the Courts below. 9. I, therefore, find that grant of bail by learned Sessions Judge, holding Court in vacation and acting as Incharge, Vacation Judge was not justified considering the nature of allegation against opposite party No. 2. 10. In the result, this application is allowed and bail granted to opposite party No. 2 by learned Sessions Judge, Gopalganj on 22-10-2001 in Bail Petition No. 611 of 2001/42 of 2001 is hereby cancelled. Opposite party No. 2 is directed to surrender before the Court below without any delay. Application allowed.