JUDGMENT:- These two applications, challenging the order of grant of anticipatory bail, can be decided together since they arise out of same order. One application is filed by the complainant and the other is filed by the State. 2. A few facts may be stated thus One Ramkishor Kasturchand Agrawal was an Upsarpanch of village Dongargaon. Accused/N.A.2 Deepak holds a country liquor shop license in village Cello. He runs a country liquor shop at Sawli. Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision that if women residing in the ward, where the shop of liquor is located, desire that no liquor shop should be run in their ward, they can make a request to the Collector and upon such request the Collector has to hold a sort of election. Women from that ward alone are allowed to cast votes for or against running such a shop. If majority of women cast vote for closure, the shop is ordered to be closed. It is alleged that at the instigation of Ramkishor Agrawal - the deceased - an election was held. The majority of the voters favoured closure of the said shop. The shop was closed and licence cancelled. Against this order, it appears that N.A.2-Deepak moved the Government and the Government granted stay. The stay was granted on 8-22007. Inspite of the stay having been granted, the Sharda Mahila MandaI at Sawli staged a Dharana in front of the shop. It is alleged that, therefore, the accused got annoyed. It is also alleged that the accused-N.A.2 Deepak along with other accused therefore, hatched a conspiracy to eliminate Ramkishor Agrawal. On 15-2-2007, deceased Ramkishor had gone Amgaon. On his way back home, it is alleged that he was found dead. It is also alleged that a show was made that Ramkishor had died in a vehicular accident. However, stab wounds were found on the person of Ramkishor. His brother Govindlal Agrawal lodged a report with the police and offence under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered. 3. Some of the suspects (accused) have already been arrested by the police. The present non-applicants-accused, however, could not be arrested due to anticipatory bail granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge. Non-applicant No.2 is the owner of the shop and non-applicant No.1 is his cousin. 4. The prosecution seeks to challenge this order of grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Some of the suspects (accused) have already been arrested by the police. The present non-applicants-accused, however, could not be arrested due to anticipatory bail granted to them by the Additional Sessions Judge. Non-applicant No.2 is the owner of the shop and non-applicant No.1 is his cousin. 4. The prosecution seeks to challenge this order of grant of anticipatory bail. 5. Before we proceed to consider the submissions, it would be worthwhile to see the manner in which the deceased was done to death and if prima facie there is evidence of death being homicidal or not. The inquest panchanama shows two stab wounds on the neck of the deceased. The post-mortem note shows two stab wounds with clear cut margines on neck. The carotid arteries were cut and death is due to hammeregic shock due to stab wounds. There are also other injuries like abrasions, contusions. The spot panchanama shows that the dead body was found near his motor cycle lying on road. There is, therefore, enough evidence prima facie to say that it was a case of murder and not an accident. No eye-witness was available. It was due to this reason that the sessions Judge should have been more circumspect while granting the anticipatory bail. 6. Shri. A. S. Manohar, learned counsel for the N.A. laccused contended that the incident had taken place on 15-2-2007 and the accused were granted bail on 3-3-2007. He submitted that therefore no useful purpose would be served by canceling the bail. There is no doubt that long time has passed since bail was granted. The question is not only of any purpose being served, but the question is also, if such order could have been passed in those circumstances. Mr. Manohar, submitted that the police have already seized weapons of offence, the Maroti Van, motor cycle etc. and nothing remains to be recovered. That may be so, here there is an allegation of conspiracy and the main person who was behind hatching such conspiracy is N.A.2 Deepak Nashine. He has not been arrested at all. 7. The main contention of Shri. Manohar, however, is that the court can consider the cancellation only on the events occurring after grant of bail i,e. an interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice, abuse of grant of concession and possibility of ascendance. He has not been arrested at all. 7. The main contention of Shri. Manohar, however, is that the court can consider the cancellation only on the events occurring after grant of bail i,e. an interference or attempt to interfere with due course of administration of justice, abuse of grant of concession and possibility of ascendance. It was also contended that the consideration for rejection of the bail should never be with anintent to punish. He relied on following decisions- (1) AIR 1984 SC 372 (Bhagirathsinh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat). 2) (2005)4 SCC 178 (Nityanand Rai Vs. State of Bihar and anr.) and 3) AIR 1993 SC 1 (Aslam Babalal Desai Vs. State of Maharashtra). All these decisions have been rendered on the question of cancellation or regular bail granted and not on anticipatory bail. 8. The considerations for grant of or cancellation of anticipatory bail would be very different. Normally, in all crimes the regular bail is granted by the court after the accused is interrogated after arrest and he is remanded to magisterial custody. That enables the Investigating Agency to collect the information, which is otherwise not possible to collect, for want of direct evidence being available. In more serious crimes, the bail application is not considered until at least a charge-sheet is filed. The accused is normally released when major part of investigation/interrogation is over. It is for this reason that while considering the question of cancellation of regular bail the court has to only SCC if the accused has committed breach of the conditions imposed or the supervening circumstances. But in the case of anticipatory bail, the things are very different. Everything is almost hazy at that stage. It is for this reason that the courts have to be more circumspect while granting the anticipatory bail. In a serious crime like murder, the necessity is still more, particularly when no eye witness account is available. When no eye witness account is available, the custodial interrogation of the accused remains the most important source of information through which the facts could be placed as evidence before the court. When the charge is of conspiracy, interrogation becomes still more important. It also becomes necessary, to discover of the weapons used or any article connected with the crime. If at proper stage, the accused are not arrested, it may be that the evidence may be lost. When the charge is of conspiracy, interrogation becomes still more important. It also becomes necessary, to discover of the weapons used or any article connected with the crime. If at proper stage, the accused are not arrested, it may be that the evidence may be lost. It is contended that interrogation can be made by simply calling the accused in the Police Station. The state of mind of accused, while in police custody is totally different, than when he is not in the policy custody and that makes all the difference. This should not even for a moment be taken, as subscribing to use of third degree method. Even an idea of being in police custody is enough for an accused to give up and spill the beans. It is not, therefore, that in every police custody every Police Officer resort to third degree method. In serious crime, therefore, it is absolutely necessary that the Investigating Officer gets an opportunity to properly investigate the matter. 9. In the case at hand, it was contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even though there was enough evidence available, the learned Sessions Judge just ignored it and granted bail. The learned Sessions Judge has observed to the effect that the Investigating Agency was bent upon to implicate the accused on basis of statement of co-accused only. This is, however, not correct. It is also observed that the names of the applicants do not appear in the F.LR. This order was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on 3-3-2007. Shri. Gupta, the learned counsel for the applicant, submitted that even on that date, besides confession of the other accused the other evidence was also available but the learned Sessions Judge had refused to look into it, which has resulted into miscarriage of justice. It appears that the learned Sessions judge was in fact, bent upon ignoring many things. Although the F.LR. does not name the accused, it does make a reference to the fact that Mahila Mandal had staged a Dharana in front of the shop of the accused/N.A.2 for its closure. In fact, this was enough to prima facie say that it makes reference to accused Deepak - owner of the shop. There is also a statement of one Santosh Lilhare employee of N.A.2 Deepak - working in the said shop. That statement is recorded on 182-2007. In fact, this was enough to prima facie say that it makes reference to accused Deepak - owner of the shop. There is also a statement of one Santosh Lilhare employee of N.A.2 Deepak - working in the said shop. That statement is recorded on 182-2007. He tells about the plan of the accused persons to do away with the deceased. He also tells about the arms being put in the Maroti Van by the accused persons and further saying that Godraya's i.e. deceased's job is to be finished in two days. He further speaks of accused Ravi asking why the people from Nagpur have not come. There is also statement of one Amar Raut - a mechanic. His statement shows, accused Satya Le. N.A.2 having informed him on phone that his motor cycle had met with an accident and it is required to be repaired. He tells about damage to the motor cycle and the missing head-light glass. This missing head light glass was found on the spot and seized by the police. There is also evidence that the registration Number of the vehicle was false. If this was the evidence available, how could Sessions Judge say that the Investigating Officer wanted to implicate the accused only on the basis of statement of co-accused? To my mind, at that stage even the statement of coaccused would be enough to deny anticipatory bail. When one of the co-accused gives such a statement. the interrogation of the other accused also becomes imperative. 10. A three Judge bench of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1985 SC 969 (Pokar Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors.) observes as follows - “5. Relevant considerations governing the court's decision in granting anticipatory bail under S.438 are materially different from those when an application for bail by a person who is arrested in the course of investigation as also by a person who is convicted and his appeal is pending before the higher court and bail is sought during the pendency of the appeal. These situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned judge in the High? These situations in which the question of granting or refusing to grant bail would arise, materially and substantially differ from each other and the relevant considerations on which the courts would exercise its discretion, one way or the other, are substantially different from each other. This is necessary to be stated because the learned judge in the High? Court unfortunately fell into an error in missing up all the considerations, as if all the three become relevant in the present situation. 9. The accusation against the respondent is that he has committed an offence of murder punishable under S.302, I.P. Code. Surprisingly, when anticipatory bail was granted on Sept. 30, 1983, there is no a whisper of it in the order of the learned Judge, Jodhpur. When a person is accused of an offence of murder by the use of a firearm. the court has to be careful and circumspect in entertaining an application for anticipatory bail. Relevant considerations are conspicuous by silence in the order of the learned Sessions Judge. Could it be said in this case that the accusation appears to stem not from motives of furthering the ends of justice but from some ulterior motive? Could be said that the object being to injury and humiliate the respondent by having him arrested? What prompted the learned Sessions Judge to grant anticipatory bail left us guessing and we are none the wiser by the discussion in the order of the learned single Judge declining to interfere. 11. Mr. Mulla then attempted to urge that on merits a good case for granting bail is made out. We are not inclined to examine this contention because neither the learned Sessions Judge nor the learned single Judge of the High Court has examined the case from that angle. The only question which we were caused upon to decide is whether the learned Sessions Judge was justified in granting anticipatory bail in the facts and circumstances of this case? Unquestionably, no case was made out for granting anticipatory 8 bail in this case. Let it be made distinctly 8 clear that status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. Let it be made distinctly 8 clear that status in life, affluence or otherwise, are hardly relevant considerations while examining the request for granting anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail to some extent intrudes in the sphere of investigation of crime and the court must be cautious and circumspect in exercising such power of a discretionary nature. This case amply il1ustrates that the power was exercised sub silentio as to reasons or on considerations irrelevant or not germane to the determination. This court to avoid miscarriage of justice, must interfere. , 13.Before we conclude this judgment, it must be made distinctly clear that some compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused in committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress. In fact the Investigating Office did not even attempt arrest the appellant though the initial accusation was under S.307, IPC punishable with imprisonment for life. And as soon as the victim of the assault succumbed to his injuries and an offence under S.302 was registered promptly an application for anticipatory bail was made and granted. If such an order is allowed to stand, faith of public in administration of justice is likely to be considerably shaken. Therefore, we have no option but to cancel the order granting anticipatory bail.” It is thus clear that the court has to be more circumspect while granting anticipatory bail and the consideration for both bails are different. It is also clear from the ratio in this case that the difficulty in setting aside order granting or refusing is not insurmountable. In a decision reported in 2001 ALL MR (Cri) 1210 (Puran Vs. Rambilas and anr.), the Supreme Court observed as follows- “10. Further, it is to be kept in mind that the concept of setting aside the unjustified illegal or perverse order is totally different from the concept of canceling the bail on the ground that accused has misconducted himself or because of some new facts requiring such cancellation. This position is maden clear by this Court in Gurucharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 . In that case the court observed as under (para 16): “If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. This position is maden clear by this Court in Gurucharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Admn.), reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 . In that case the court observed as under (para 16): “If, however, a Court of Session had admitted an accused person to bail, the State has two options. It may move the Sessions Judge if certain new circumstances have arise which were not earlier known to the State and necessarily, therefore, to that Court. The State may as well approach the High Court being the superior Court under S. 439(2) to commit the accused to custody. When, however, the State is aggrieved by the order of the Sessions Judge granting bail and there are no new circumstances that have cropped up except those already existed, it is futile for the State to move the Sessions Judge again and it is competent in law to move the High Court for cancellation of the bail. This position follows from the the cancellation of bail already granted.” I would prefer to follow the two decisions in Pokar Ram and Puran case and set aside the order granting bail and reject the application for anticipatory bail. Both the applications are allowed. Applications allowed.