Judgment :- The petitioners/A.1, A.4 to A.16 filed this Criminal Petition under Sections 437 & 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in P.R.C.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pathikonda, Kurnool District. The petitioners are accused Nos.1, 4 to 16 in Crime No.37 of 2008 of Devanakonda Police Station, in which a charge sheet has been filed against the petitioners and the other accused for the offences punishable Under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 (1B) (b) and 27 of the Arms Act. There are factions in Kapatralla village of Devanakonda Mandal, Kurnool District. There was long standing enmity between the accused party and the family of the first deceased (hereinafter referred to as 'D.1'). D.1 contested for the election of Sarpanch for Kapatralla village against the father of A.1, in which election father of A.1 was defeated by D.1. However, because of the influence and domination of the family of D.1, A.1 and A.2 left the village. D.1 also filed some cases against the father of A.1 in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Pathikonda. Ultimately, the father of A.1 was brutally murdered by hurling bombs by the group of D.1. It is alleged that A.1, A.4 and others have meticulously planned to murder the deceased and they were waiting for an opportunity. They secured bombs and hunting sickles, and kept them underneath the Hundry river old bridge. On 17-5-2008, A.1 noticed the vehicle AP-21-M-8434 by D.1 coming from Kapatralla village in opposite direction and he informed A.4 over phone. A.4 drove the lorry with high speed and hit the trax near Kotha Bodupadu bus stop on 17.5.2008 at about 09.20 hrs. A.1 along with other accused reached the spot in Sumo and mini lorry and attacked D.1 and his followers. A.1 hurled bomb on the trax vehicle of D.1 later he hacked D.1 with hunting sickle on his forehead. A4 hacked D.1 with hunting sickle on his face. A.3 hacked D.1 with hunting sickle on his left hand. A.22 also hacked the D.1 with hunting sickle. A.23 hacked D.2 with hunting sickle. Remaining accused also participated in the commission of offence by hurling country made bombs and armed with hunting sickles and caused the death of D.1 to D.5 and D.7 to D.10 instantaneously. A.3 hacked D.1 with hunting sickle on his left hand. A.22 also hacked the D.1 with hunting sickle. A.23 hacked D.2 with hunting sickle. Remaining accused also participated in the commission of offence by hurling country made bombs and armed with hunting sickles and caused the death of D.1 to D.5 and D.7 to D.10 instantaneously. D.6, D.11 and LW.30 sustained severe bleeding injuries. The de facto complainant and other witnesses LW.24 to LW.29, LW.34 to LW.39 who are proceeding behind the vehicle of D.1, witnessed the ghastly incident and afraid of the same on seeing the death of above persons escaped from the vision of the accused. After completion of their plan successfully the accused left the place in TATA Sumo and Mini lorry towards Kunnur village. On the report given by P. Paramappa Naidu the police registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2008 Under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307, 302 r/w 149 of Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sections 25 (1B) (b) and 27 of the Arms Act. The police after completion of investigation laid charge sheet against the accused. There are eyewitnesses and witnesses for recovery of weapons and criminal conspiracy and circumstantial evidence. Total 114 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that except the petitioners other accused were granted bail; that the petitioners have been languishing in jail since about one year; and that since the charge sheet is filed, they may be enlarged on bail. It is also submitted that the petitioners against whom no specific overt acts have been attributed may be granted bail. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail. While granting bail, the Courts have to consider the nature, seriousness of the offence, character of the evidence and the larger interest of the society. It should also consider the facts and circumstances of the case not only from the point of view of the accused but also from the point of view of the victims, the common man. The gravity and nature of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of society are also important points to be taken into consideration. It should also consider the facts and circumstances of the case not only from the point of view of the accused but also from the point of view of the victims, the common man. The gravity and nature of the offence and its impact on the democratic fabric of society are also important points to be taken into consideration. Of-course the liberty of the individuals has to be given paramount importance, but while giving importance to the liberty of citizens, the gravity of the offence should also be taken into consideration. Where in a case it appears that the accused have been falsely implicated, the court may grant bail in such cases, where there are no reasonable grounds to say that the accused committed the offence the court may grant bail to the accused. Where in a case women and children are involved, the court may consider such factors. The learned counsel for petitioners submitted that it may take long time for conclusion of trial, and therefore, the petitioners shall be granted bail. Just because there is chance of trial not being concluded in the near future that alone would not make the petitioners entitled to bail. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners have to arrange their defence and they should be enlarged on bail to ensure a fair trial to them. The need to ensure fair trial in a case is also an equal responsibility of entire criminal justice system. Fair trial means, not only fair trial to the accused but also to the victims and to the witnesses. If the accused, who have committed gruesome brutal offences are released on bail, it may give wrong signal to the society and no witness may come forward to depose the truth before the Court. Now a days, there is no security to the witnesses and therefore independent witnesses are rarely coming forward to give evidence before the Courts. Therefore, the issue has to be considered in the larger interest of the public. Where there is reasonable apprehension of tampering of witnesses and apprehension of threat to the complainant, those factors have to be taken into consideration, while dealing with bail petitions. Therefore, the issue has to be considered in the larger interest of the public. Where there is reasonable apprehension of tampering of witnesses and apprehension of threat to the complainant, those factors have to be taken into consideration, while dealing with bail petitions. Though the police have completed investigation and laid charge sheet, but in view of the gravity of the offences in which 11 persons were brutally murdered, I am of the view that the petitioners are not entitled to bail. Since it is represented that the charge sheet has been filed and the case is committed to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge is directed to see that the trial in this case is completed within a period of three months from today, and if necessary, by giving day-to-day postings. The learned Public Prosecutor while opposing the bail submitted that A.33 and A.35 are absconding. Even if some of the accused are absconding, the learned Sessions Judge should take steps, and if there is no possibility of apprehending the accused in the near future, the case against such accused persons should be separated and the trial against the accused, who are available should be completed as early as possible. It is needless to mention that the concerned authorities also should give necessary protection to the witnesses and ensure confidence in them till the conclusion of trial. Subject to above, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.