Judgment :- Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The State has filed this CRM under s.439(2) CrPC dated May 2, 2012 for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party by the Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court in-charge, Siliguri on April 12, 2012. Affidavit of service has been filed stating that the opposite party has refused to receive the notice tendered to him by the Controller of Jalpaiguri Central Correctional Home where he is lodged in connection with two other cases. In para.6(f) of the CRM it has been stated that a case No.154/11 dated July 29, 2011 under s.395 PC and ss.3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act and another case No.479/11 dated August 3, 2011 under ss.394/397 IPC, registered in Raniganj and Katwali police stations respectively, are pending against the opposite party. It has been submitted that the opposite party has not been granted bail in those cases. The FIR in this case was registered on September 19, 2011 in Siliguri police station under ss.396/412/414 IPC and ss.25/27 Arms Act. The charge-sheet has been submitted against eleven accused; and while nine accused are absconding, bail has been granted by this court to one (Provin Tirkey). It has been submitted that Provin has been granted bail, because allegation against him is only of commission of an offence under s.412. The opposite party was arrested on October 25, 2011. In para.6 it has been stated that it is a case of dacoity with murder; that a US made 7.65 bore pistol, detonators, etc. have been recovered from the opposite party’s possession; that in TI parade eyewitness has identified the opposite party; and that the opposite party is a habitual offender “in the commission of dacoity.” The case in the CRM leads to the conclusion that the prosecution case against the opposite party is fully supported by the materials collected through investigation. The court below noted the seriousness of the offences. Its reasons for bail are: some accused are at large, no possibility of immediate trial, a coaccused has been granted bail by this court, and the concept is of bail, not jail. We are unable to accept that it was a fit case for granting bail. The court below did not say how the opposite party stood on the same footing as Provin. It, indeed, did not refer to any material in the case diary. We are unable to accept that it was a fit case for granting bail. The court below did not say how the opposite party stood on the same footing as Provin. It, indeed, did not refer to any material in the case diary. The case diary, if perused, would have revealed to it the above-noted materials showing the opposite party’s role in the commission of the grave offences of dacoity with murder. It is evident that the court below granted the opposite party bail in ignorance of his antecedents. At the date he was granted bail he was accused in two other cases under s.395 IPC, etc. and ss.394/397 IPC; and in those cases he had not been granted bail. The court below overlooked that bail to the opposite party was likely to affect the general interest of the society and trial of the case,- things to prevail over the right to liberty of an accused in custody. For these reasons, we are of the view that bail granted to the opposite party should be cancelled. We, accordingly, allow the CRM, cancel the bail and commit the opposite party to jail custody. The court below is directed to split up the case and commence and conclude the trial thereof as expeditiously as possible.