JUDGMENT:- Heard. 2. ADMIT. 3. Heard finally. 4. The application is for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur on 31st January, 2012. The respondent was accused of the offences punishable under Sections 147 and 149 read with Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The name of the respondent was there in the first information report. Despite that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has granted anticipatory bail in a serious offence like murder. The observations made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge need to be reproduced herein below to show that how casually the application for anticipatory bail in a serious offence like murder has been treated. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has stated in his order at paragraph 7 that: "... It reveals from first information report that no role attributed to the applicant, though his name is mentioned in FIR. Statement of some of the witnesses goes to show that at the time of incident, applicant was saying "Maro Sale Ko". Except these two words, there is nothing in investigation papers even to indicate that he played any role in the incident or actually participated...... " It is thus, clear that the witnesses had stated in their statements that the respondent had instigated the mob. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have realised that the respondent and his associates were accused of the offence of being members of unlawful assembly and the alleged murder was committed in prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge should have also realised that every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the act(s) done by anyone of the members of the said assembly if it is done in prosecution of common object of the assembly. The learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have decided the application of the respondent, that too for prearrest bail, in such a casual and superficial manner. 5. The learned counsel Mrs. Katekar for the respondent-accused has submitted that one year has already passed from the date of bail. Charge-sheet has already been filed and the respondent is regularly attending the Court. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances, the bail already granted to the respondent may not be cancelled. 5. The learned counsel Mrs. Katekar for the respondent-accused has submitted that one year has already passed from the date of bail. Charge-sheet has already been filed and the respondent is regularly attending the Court. It is submitted that, in the facts and circumstances, the bail already granted to the respondent may not be cancelled. He has cited a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of U.P. & Anr., reported at 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 900 (S.C.) and has invited my attention to paragraph 8 of the said judgment. It is stated in the said judgment by the Supreme Court that: "8. Since the accused is on bail for considerable length of time, we do not think it appropriate to cancel the bail, though there appears to be some substance in the plea that the impugned order granting bail suffers from various infirmities....." 6. In the first place, the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not pertain to anticipatory bail. It was a regular bail. In the present case, as already stated by me, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has exercised powers under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a very superficial manner. The Supreme Court has made those observations on the facts of that particular case. In the present case the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained, as the order by itself is wrong. It is not that the bail is being cancelled on the ground of some supervening circumstances. The bail is being cancelled because this Court has found that the order by itself is absolutely wrong and suffers from serious infirmities. Such order cannot be sustained. 7. In view of what has been stated by me herein above the bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 31st January, 2012 under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure stands cancelled. The applicant shall surrender before the trial Court within fortyeight hours. The trial Court shall take him into custody immediately after his surrender. The applicant is at liberty to apply for regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the trial Court. The application stands disposed of accordingly. Ordered accordingly.