COMMON ORDER :-All these four applications are filed for cancellation of bail of the accused/respondents, as detailed below, who are accused in Cr.No.40 of 2007 of Tenali I Town Police Station, Guntur District. S.No. Crl.P.No. Filed against whom 1 Crl.P.No. 6503 of 2007 Against A-1 2 Crl.P.No. 6098 of 2007 Against A-2 3 Crl.P.No. 6134 of 2007 Against A-3 4 Cri.P.No. 6135 of 2007 Against A-6 2. The facts that gave rise to this case are as follows: On 16.4.2007 at 5.30 p.m., opposite to Nehru Niketan English Medium School, Bose Road, Tenali Town, Suryadevara Sambasiva Rao, the deceased herein, a Counsellor of 13th Ward of Municipal Council, Tenali was killed. A1 a former Counsellor of Tenali Municipality; A2 a Civil Contractor at Tenali; A3 a present Counsellor of 15th Ward of Tenali Municipality; A4 and AS, who are father and son, residents of Tenali known to A1; and A6 a resident of Jaggaiahpet of Krishna District and relative of A3 have allegedly hacked him to death after knocking down him with a motorbike, by pushing his motorbike with another motorbike. According to the prosecution case, on account of: some civil disputes between A.1 and A.3 with the deceased, they took the help of other accused and killed the deceased. All the accused have ultimately attacked the deceased with knives etc., causing his instantaneous death. According to the prosecution case, A6 is an unsocial element living at Jaggaiahpet in Krishna District. A.1, A.4 and A.5 were arrested on 5.5.2007; A.2 and A.3 were arrested on 7.5.2007 and A6 was arrested on 18.5.2007. Certain bail applications filed on behalf of the accused were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge and ultimately A.2, A.3 and A.6 were granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge in Crl. M.P. No.962 of 2007 on 25.9.2007; A.4 and A.5 were granted bail by this Court in Crl. P. No.5632 of 2007 on 1.1 0.2007. 3. The petitioner in all these petitions, who is the wife of the deceased, filed the petitions for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, who are the respondents in the present petitions, as indicated above. 4. P. No.5632 of 2007 on 1.1 0.2007. 3. The petitioner in all these petitions, who is the wife of the deceased, filed the petitions for cancellation of bail granted to the accused, who are the respondents in the present petitions, as indicated above. 4. Now the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is a heinous crime that has taken place during broad day light in full public view; it is a cold blooded murder; as the accused have hatched up a plan; watched the movements of the deceased and killed him while he was going on motorbike; there are eyewitnesses for the incident; the learned Sessions Judge dismissed their bail applications earlier and has granted bail without substantial change of circumstances and that all the accused/respondents are involved in other cases. 5. Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents-accused contends that there are absolutely no grounds for cancellation of bail; that bail once granted cannot ordinarily be cancelled, unless there are circumstances to show that the accused have contravened the conditions of bail etc. 6. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the petitions? 7. With regard to A.1 (first respondent in Crl.P .No.6503 of 2007), his bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 2.8.2007 in Crl. M.P. No.981111 2007 along with A.4 and A.5 (for whom bail was granted by this Court), holding that "the case diary reveals that the incident took place in the broad day light in the heart of Tenali Town. The deceased received as many as eighteen injuries on his person. It is a ghastly murder, which shook the confidence of people in the area. Specific overt acts have been attributed to each of the accused. The facts of the case would go to show that as per pre-arranged plan, accused No.5 hit the motor cycle of the deceased from behind and as he fell down, all the accused surrounded him and hacked him to death. Releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage would result in tampering of evidence and breach of peace and tranquility in the locality. Police are yet to complete investigation and file charge-sheet. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioners and in favour of the prosecution." 8. Releasing the petitioners on bail at this stage would result in tampering of evidence and breach of peace and tranquility in the locality. Police are yet to complete investigation and file charge-sheet. Hence, this point is answered against the petitioners and in favour of the prosecution." 8. Another bail application was filed on behalf of the above accused in Crl. M.P. No.98 1/2/2007. This was after filing of the charge-sheet and the learned Sessions Judge dismissed this bail application on 22.8.2007 observing that all the accused surrounded the deceased and hacked him to death. The post-mortem report reveals as many as eighteen injuries. It is a ghastly murder which took place in the broad day light in Tenali Town, disturbing the peace and tranquility of the locality; merely because charge-sheet is filed the petitioners are not entitled for bail. It is not the stage to enlarge them on bail. Their release, may lead to further commotion in the town leading to some more retaliation murders. 9. Another bail application - Crl. M.P. No.981/3/2007 was filed on behalf of A.1 (First respondent in Crl. P. No.6503 of 2007) before the learned Sessions Judge. In the meanwhile, other petitioners in the earlier two bail applications i.e., A.4 and A.5 were granted bail by this Court on 1.10.2007 in CrI. P. No.5632 of 2007. Therefore the bail application of Al was allowed by the learned Sessions Judge observing that other accused were already enlarged on bail and the petitioner is suffering from diabetes and Hypertension; his wife is bedridden; he is a permanent resident of Tenali; possibility of his fleeing out of the jurisdiction of the Court is remote; as such he should be released on bail and by releasing him on bail, the case of the prosecution would not be prejudiced. 10. With regard to A2 his bail application was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge on 22.8.2007 in Crl. M.P. No.962/1/ 2007 along with the bail application of A.3 and A.6 (respondents in Crl. P.Nos.6134 and 6135 of 2007). While dismissing the bail application, the learned Sessions Judge observed. "There is no dispute that the murder of the deceased took place in broad day light in the heart of Tenali Town. M.P. No.962/1/ 2007 along with the bail application of A.3 and A.6 (respondents in Crl. P.Nos.6134 and 6135 of 2007). While dismissing the bail application, the learned Sessions Judge observed. "There is no dispute that the murder of the deceased took place in broad day light in the heart of Tenali Town. The facts of the case would go to show that when A5 dashed the scooter of the deceased with his motorcycle from behind, he fell down and all the accused surrendered him and hacked him to death. As many as eighteen injuries were found on the person of the deceased. It is a ghastly murder, which occurred in the center of the town. The part played by each of the accused has been narrated in the FIR, as well as in the charge-sheet. As such, I am of the view that merely because charge-sheet is filed, the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail. They have resorted to a heinous crime in the center of Tenali Town and disturbed the peace and tranquility in the locality. So far as A6 is concerned, the case diary reveals that he was accused in Cr.Nos.2/05; 3/05 and 5/05 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station; Cr.No.187 of 2005 of Pedakakani Police Station, and Cr.No.74 of 2006 of Chillakallu Police Sation. It is clear that he has got past criminal record. The case of the prosecution is that he too conspired with other accused and killed the deceased as pre-arranged plan. Hence, I hold that this is not the stage to enlarge the petitioners on bail. Bail application filed on his behalf in Crl. M.P. No.962/4/2007 was allowed on 25.9.2007 observing that "facts of the case would go to show that entire investigation is over and charge-sheet has also been filed. The merits of the case can be gone into at the time of trial. The only apprehension is that release of the petitioner may result in escalation of violence. The incident occurred almost three months ago. The Court can impose conditions while granting bail preventing the possibility of further escalation of violence. I am of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail subject to some conditions. The point is answered accordingly." 11. With regard to A.3 - his bail application in Crl. The incident occurred almost three months ago. The Court can impose conditions while granting bail preventing the possibility of further escalation of violence. I am of the view that the petitioner should be enlarged on bail subject to some conditions. The point is answered accordingly." 11. With regard to A.3 - his bail application in Crl. M.P. No.962/1/2007 filed along with A.2 and A.6 it was dismissed on 22.8.2007 for the reasons already extracted above, while discussing with regard to A.2. 12. A3 was granted bail on 25.9.2007 in Crl. M.P. No.962/3/2007 holding that the entire investigation is over and the incident occurred more than three months ago and as the investigation is over there is no possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence etc. 13. With regard to A6, (respondent No.1 in Crl. P. No.6135 of 2007), he was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge on 25.9.2007 in Crl. M.P. No.962/2/2007 holding that the facts would go to show that the incident occurred about four months ago; the police have completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet. The merits and demerits of respective contentions regarding the incident can be looked into at the time of trial after taking evidence from both parties. Since investigation is over, there is no possibility of the petitioner to tamper the prosecution evidence. To prevent breach of peace and tranquility the Court can impose sufficient conditions while enlarging the petitioner on bail. In Crl. M.P. No.962/1/2007, so far as A.6 is concerned, it was observed that "he was accused in Cr. Nos.2/05; 3/05 and 5/05 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station;Cr.No.187 of 2005 of Pedaakani Police Station, and Cr.No.74 of 2006 of Chillakallu Police Station. It is clear that he has got past criminal record. ~e case of the prosecution is that he too conspired with other accused and killed the deceased as pre-arranged plan. Hence, I hold that this is not the stage to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the point is answered accordingly." 14. Thus in the case of A.1; A.2; A.3 and A.6, their earlier bail applications were dismissed even after filing of the chargesheet and later they were granted bail, though there were not much change of circumstances. 15. Hence, I hold that this is not the stage to enlarge the petitioners on bail and the point is answered accordingly." 14. Thus in the case of A.1; A.2; A.3 and A.6, their earlier bail applications were dismissed even after filing of the chargesheet and later they were granted bail, though there were not much change of circumstances. 15. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, contends that as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1993 SC 1 , bail can be cancelled only when: (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity; (ii) interferes with the course of investigating; (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses; (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation; (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country; (vi) attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety etc. that when there is no change of circumstances after granting bail, to attract the circumstances referred to above, ordinarily the bail cannot be cancelled. 16. The learned Counsel also relied on a decision in Dolatram v. State of Haryana, 1995 (1) SCC 349 , where the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: "Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation 'of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) 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. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material place on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during the trial. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of the bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of the bail already granted." 17. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu v. S.A. Raja, 2006 (1) ALD (Crl.) 220 (SC) = 2005 (8) SCC 380 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when there was no change of circumstances from the time of refusal of bail and to that of granting bail, bail ought not to have been granted; that in an earlier order, in similar circumstances, the High Court observed that the accused might influence the witnesses; that order was challenged before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to interfere and within short period bail was granted without adverting to any of the points dealt with by the learned Single Judge, who declined to grant bail to the accused. The Apex Court observed: "When a learned Single Judge of the same Court had denied bail to the respondent for certain reasons and that order was unsuccessfully challenged before the appellate forum, without there being any major change of circumstances, another fresh application should not have been dealt with within a short span of time unless there were valid grounds giving rise to a tenable case for bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents" and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to cancel the bail. Of course, the principles of res judicata are not applicable to bail applications, but the repeated filing of the bail applications without there being any change of circumstances would lead to bad precedents" and ultimately the Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to cancel the bail. The above decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, shows that apart from the circumstances mentioned in the decision of Aslam Babalal Desai's case (above), bail can be cancelled in cases bail was granted without any substantial change of circumstances and in the circumstances of a particular case, in case the case warrants the same. 18. In Rambilas v. Shekhar, 2001 (6) SCC 338 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order granting bail passed by ignoring the material and the evidence on record and without giving reasons, would be perverse and contrary to the principles of law; such order would itself provide a ground for moving an application for cancellation of bail; such ground for cancellation is different from the ground that the accused misconducted himself or some new facts call for cancellation; and that arbitrary and wrong exercise of discretion of the trial Court has to be corrected. Thus there cannot be any dispute that bail granted can be cancelled without there being circumstances that warrant cancellation of bail, as referred to in As/am Baba's case (supra), by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 19. Thus the bail that was granted without any reasonable ground and without properly considering the material on record can be cancelled. 20. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI, 2007 (1) SCC (Crl) 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in State of U.P. v. Amaranai Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21 ; and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 (3) SCC 284 = 2005 AILD 205 (SC). 20. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav v. CBI, 2007 (1) SCC (Crl) 254, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the decision in State of U.P. v. Amaranai Tripathi, 2005 (8) SCC 21 ; and Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, 2005 (3) SCC 284 = 2005 AILD 205 (SC). In Amara Mani's case (supra), it was held that the matters to be considered in an application for bail are: (i) Whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the charge; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. It was further held that if the accused is of such a character that his mere presence at large would intimidate the witnesses, or if there is material to show that he will use his liberty to subvert justice or tamper with the evidence, then the bail will be refused. 21. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar's case (supra), it was observed "the Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Though at the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted, particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence. Any order devoid of such circumstance would suffer from non-application of mind. It is also necessary that the Court granting bail has to consider among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are, (a) The nature of accusation and severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the Court in support of the charge. 22. 22. In Rajesh Ranjan Yadav's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that long period of incarceration during trial and the facility to arrange for defence effectively are also not grounds for granting bail. In Paragraph 16 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that: "We are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual liberty but at the same time a balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and the interest of society. No right can be absolute, and reasonable restrictions can be placed on them. While it is true that one of the considerations in deciding whether to grant bail to an accused or not is whether he has been in jail for a long time, the Court has also to take into consideration other facts and circumstances, such as the interest of the society. 23. In Cr!. M.P. No.962/112007 dated 22.8.2007, as already referred the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail petition filed on behalf of A2, A3 and A6 holding that there is force in the contention of the prosecution that A6 (respondent No.1 in Crl. P. No.6135 of 2007) is involved in serious crimes in Jaggaiahpet Police Station; as such he cannot be granted bail; there are specific overt acts attributed to other accused. The learned Sessions Judge further observed that there is no dispute that when the murder of the deceased took place in broad day light, in the heart of Tenali Town; A5 dashed the scooter of the deceased from behind; after he fell down, they all hacked him to death, causing as many as eighteen injuries. It is a ghastly murder, which occurred in the center of the town. The part played by each of the accused has been narrated in the FIR, as well as in the charge-sheet; as such merely because the charge-sheet is filed,' the petitioners should not be enlarged on bail. They have resorted to heinous crime in the center of Tenali Town and disturbed the peace and tranquility in the locality. The record shows that A6 was involved as accused in Cr.Nos.2/05; 3/05 and 5/05 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station; Cr.No.187 of 2005 of Pedaakani Police Station, and Cr.No.74 of 2006 of Chillakallu Police Station, which shows that he got past criminal record. 24. The record shows that A6 was involved as accused in Cr.Nos.2/05; 3/05 and 5/05 of Jaggaiahpet Police Station; Cr.No.187 of 2005 of Pedaakani Police Station, and Cr.No.74 of 2006 of Chillakallu Police Station, which shows that he got past criminal record. 24. In spite of all this, there being not Much of change of circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge granted bail to all the respondents, herein. 25. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav's case (supra), though Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as it deals with the individual right of liberty, is of great importance, at the same time, balance has to be struck between the right to individual liberty and interest of the society. 26. Indiscriminate granting of bails in all types of cases may lead to several undesirable consequences. 27. In cases of cold-blooded murders, organized crimes, faction cases; cases of habitual offenders etc., if bail is granted in a routine manner, that may encourage crime and criminals and put the law abiding citizens to fear and fear of succumbing to the pressure of such criminals, as they are likely to get a message that law is very weak and criminals would go out of jail in no time, in spite of their committing heinous crimes. So also for the criminals also, in case there is no fear of law, they would be encouraged and emboldened, putting the interest of the society in general, at stake. It is not at all desirable to grant bail to accused, who are repeatedly involved in crimes. The prosecuting agency must be diligent to bring it to the notice of the Court about the earlier history of the accused, when he moves for bail and that would help in considering the bail application in a proper perspective. 28. Thus utmost care and caution has to be taken while considering bail applications. It is also essential to see that the situation is not exploited by the investigating agencies. 29. Even in serious offences, where there is substantial prima facie material, bails are being liberally granted after filing the charge-sheet. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav's case (supra), referred to above, bail may not be automatically granted even after filing of the charge-sheet. 30. 29. Even in serious offences, where there is substantial prima facie material, bails are being liberally granted after filing the charge-sheet. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav's case (supra), referred to above, bail may not be automatically granted even after filing of the charge-sheet. 30. Even in cases of white collar offences, which are ever increasing and in most of which, punishment is not very high; but when they are non-bailable, it is not desirable to be unduly liberal in granting bail, particularly when there is authentic documentary evidence. 31. Not being unduly liberal is one of the greatest modes of curbing crime. However, where the material furnished prima facie shows that it is a case of false implication or where circuitous methods are adopted to get a case into circumspection of criminal case; where there is no positive material and where the record clearly shows that innocent are implicated en-masse in cases like the one under Section 498-A IPC etc., Courts may not be stringent in granting bails. 32. Coming to the present case of cancellation of bail, there were no substantial change of circumstances, in case of the respondents, in all the petitions, from the date of refusal of bail to the time of granting bail, as such, there were no justifiable grounds to grant bail to them; still as more caution has to be taken,' while cancelling bail, than at the time of granting bail and as cancellation of bail is rarely resorted to and as the power to cancel bail has to be sparingly used, I am not inclined to cancel bail of the respondents in Crl. P. Nos.6503, 6098 and 6134 of 2007. 33. As far as, A6/respondent in Crl. P. No.6135 of 2007 is concerned, as he is involved in as many as five offences earlier, as referred to in this order and as he in the position of a person engaged only for committing the offence, not being himself having any motive, his bail deserves to be cancelled. 34. In the result: (i) Criminal Petition Nos.6503; 6098 and 6134 of 2007 (in respect of A1; A2; and A3) are dismissed. (ii) Criminal Petition No.6135 of 2007 is allowed. Bail granted to the respondent/A6 herein, by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur in Crl. M.P. No.962/2/2007 shall stand cancelled. He shall be rearrested forthwith.