Vishnu Chandra Gupta, J.— 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, special counsel appearing on behalf of accused respondents No.1 to 3 and learned AGA for the State. 2. This is an application for cancellation for bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. of opposite party No.1 to 3. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the accused applicants were involved in a case having Case Crime No. 689 of 2012, under Sections 302, 307 I.P.C., registered against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in Police Station Harpalpur, District- Hardoi. The informant Ram Niwas lodged First Information Report alleging therein that his son Gaurav was going to Delhi to join Merchant Navy along with Atul Kumar and Raghvendra. All three boarded in the vehicle having registration No. UP076B 9727 from village Shekhpur. This vehicle was not having any passenger except driver Raiitu and his companions, the driver stopped the vehicle at a wine shop at Shawajpur where the driver, Anil Singh and Dharmendra Singh took wine and proceeded back towards Harpalpur. In the way they beaten Gaurav and snatched the bag having Rs. 2 lac from him. When Gaurav raised protest, they all beaten him badly. In this incident Gaurav lost his life due to assault made by all the three accused person. Information of it was given to the complainant Ram Nivash by phone. On information received on telephone the complainant along with Santosh Kumar and Ramdev reached at the spot. All the three accused persons threw Gaurav and two person out of the bus. Gaurav was found dead and two others were found unconscious. Atul was sent to hospital where he was referred to Lucknow. It was further mentioned in the FIR that all the three including dead told to accused persons that they have to go to Delhi and he may be permitted to leave bus but all of three accused did not stop the bus. This report was lodged on 2nd January, 2012. The police submitted final report so far as the incident of loot of Rs. 2,00,000/- is concerned. 4. The accused persons moved bail application before the Sessions Judge who by its detailed order passed on 22.10.2012 granted bail to them. 5. This report was lodged on 2nd January, 2012. The police submitted final report so far as the incident of loot of Rs. 2,00,000/- is concerned. 4. The accused persons moved bail application before the Sessions Judge who by its detailed order passed on 22.10.2012 granted bail to them. 5. The cancellation of bail has been sought on the following grounds: That the case is based on ocular testimony and the accused persons after their arrest were released on bail within a month. It has been further submitted that the case is based on ocular testimony of two injured witnesses. The Sessions Judge has wrongly mentioned that no specific role has been attributed to the respondents. It was further submitted that all the three accused persons threatened on 01.11.2012 to kill Ram Nivas the complainant. An application was moved to Superintendent of Police on 02.11.2012. Thereafter an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was moved against the accused persons which was dismissed in non-prosecution. Later on fresh application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved which was treated as complaint case but cognizance has yet to be taken. 6. The Sessions Judge has granted bail to the accused persons after exercising the discretion vested in him. Prima facie, it cannot be said that discretion exercised by the Sessions Judge is per se illegal or is against some statutory provision of law. This court exercising the jurisdiction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot act as court of appeal and cannot scrutinize the order of granting bail as is of an order subject to appeal. 7. So far as question of threatening is concerned mere moving an application to police authorities or under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. would not automatically give reason to cancel the bail unless there are some strong reasons, material and the proof of tampering the evidence is available. 8. It has further been informed by learned counsel for the accused persons that case has been committed to the court of sessions on 22.05.2013 and trial will start soon. It was further submitted that the allegations that respondents ever threatened the complainant are incorrect. It was further submitted that no time has been given in the application extending threats to the complainant. It shows that complainant move this petition with intent to harass the respondents. It was further submitted that part of the story of the prosecution was found false 9. It was further submitted that no time has been given in the application extending threats to the complainant. It shows that complainant move this petition with intent to harass the respondents. It was further submitted that part of the story of the prosecution was found false 9. Having considered the submissions of both the parties, this court is of the considered view that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr.P.C. cannot act as court of appeal. The order of granting bail by sessions judge is discretionary one. Unless it is shown that the discretion exercised is against the law or some statutory provision contained in statute book or has not been exercised in a judicious manner the discretion exercised could not be interfere. 10. This Court is also of the view that the evidence of threatening the complainant is not very convincing. At this stage mere moving application without time of extending threats will not per se constitute an act of tampering the evidence. 11. The case is committed to the court of sessions and trial is likely to be started very soon. 12. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case the petition lacks merit. 13. However, it is provided that the trial court shall expedite the hearing of the trial and shall proceed with the trial strictly observing the provision contained in Section 309 Cr.P.C. without giving any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. In case it is found by the learned trial court at any stage that the accused persons are willfuly or with malafide intention is not cooperating in quick disposal of the trial or if the court is of the opinion on the basis of material placed before the trial court that evidence of prosecution is being tampered with by any means the trial court would be at liberty to cancel the bail. 14. Accordingly, application for cancellation of bail is finally disposed off. _________________