JUDGMENT This criminal petition is filed under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C by the petitioner, who is the father of the deceased-Shaguftha Shereen seeking cancellation of bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A1, who is the husband of the deceased, vide orders dated 26.08.2013 in Crl.MP.No.3173/2013 in Cr.No.442/2013 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/A1 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, representing the State. The brief facts of the case according to the prosecution are that the deceased Shaguftha Shereen, a native of Karnataka, who discontinued her studies in M.Sc (Genetics) married A1 in the year 2008. They were blessed with a daughter out of their wedlock. Some differences arose between the couple and there used to be frequent quarrels over trivial family matters. A1 who allegedly vexed with the attitude of his wife (deceased), decided to do away her life. He hired A2 on condition of paying Rs.3 lakhs for killing the deceased. In pursuance of the criminal conspiracy hatched by both A1 and A2, A2 did a ‘Reccee’ on 19th and 20th June, 2013. Thereafter, A2 paid the ransom of Rs.3 lakhs to A2. After receiving the amount, A2 advised A1 to serve a tea to the deceased mixing sleeping pills. A1 did so and conveyed the information to A2 that his wife was in deep sleep. This was done on 21.06.2013. On receiving the information, A2 went to the house of A1 situated at Venkataramana colony, Panjagutta, Hyderabad, opened the door with a key given by A1, entered into the house, picked up a vegetable cutter from the kitchen and stabbed the deceased to death by causing multiple injuries on the throat and other vital parts of the body. After killing the deceased, A2 handed over the gold ornaments of the deceased to A1. This was done with an intention to hoodwink the investigating agency. According to the prosecution, while A2 was stabbing the deceased, the deceased woke up, struggled and in that process A2 sustained injuries on his right forearm and also a cut injury between left thumb and index finger. Basing on the report lodged by the brother of the deceased, a case in Cr.No.442/2013 of Panjagutta Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. Basing on the report lodged by the brother of the deceased, a case in Cr.No.442/2013 of Panjagutta Police Station was registered for the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. In the course of investigation, both the accused were arrested and were lodged in prison. A1 filed an application seeking bail before the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and initially it was dismissed. Subsequently, A1 filed another application seeking bail in Crl.MP.No.3173/2013 and the same was allowed by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad granting bail to him. The said bail is sought to be cancelled in the present criminal petition. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while granting bail to A1, the learned Sessions Judge did not take into consideration the submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor which were to the effect that A1 was threatening the family members of the deceased not to depose against him and also that if he was released on bail, he would interfere with the process of investigation. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that despite the fact the offence is a most heinous one, the bail was granted by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge ignoring the relevant materials which reveal the involvement of the 2nd respondent/A1 in the commission of offence, and as such, releasing the 2nd respondent/A1 on bail resulted in grave injustice and therefore it is liable to be cancelled. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/A1 would submit that the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on being convinced that the 2nd respondent/A1 is entitled for bail, released him on bail. The learned counsel pointed out that the considerations for granting bail and the cancellation of the bail which was already granted are altogether different and in the instant case there are no valid grounds to cancel the bail. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/A1 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 1999 Crl. L.J. 4063, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/A1 relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subhendu Mishra vs. Subrat Kumar Mishra, 1999 Crl. L.J. 4063, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already granted. Generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are: interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the Court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial.” The conditions laid down in the aforesaid judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would be dealt with a little later with reference to the facts of the present case. Before going to that exercise, it would be necessary to refer to the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeking cancellation of bail. In Kanwar Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 12 SCC 180 the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “While cancelling bail under Section 439(2) Cr. P.C, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel the bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are against the well-recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing the accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society.” In State of U.P vs. Amarmani Tripathi, (2005) 8 SCC 21 and Singh v State of Rajasthan (2004) 9 SCC 428 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court expressed the view that when there is reasonable ground for apprehending that if the accused is not taken into custody, he might take over the task of tampering with the evidence and manipulating/threatening witnesses and if the Court is prima facie satisfied that the accused has misused the liberty granted to him by releasing him on bail, it is essential to cancel the bail. In the instant case, the 2nd respondent/A1 hatched up a conspiracy with A2, a hired assassin, to kill his wife, the deceased, by paying a ransom of Rs.3 lakhs to A2. After paying the amount of Rs.3 lakhs to A2, A1 took part in the commission of the offence by serving a tea to the deceased which was mixed up with sleeping pills, thereby enabling A2 to stab the deceased. The offence is a most heinous one. One of the important factors to be considered while granting bail is the nature of offence and the manner in which it was perpetrated, but the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge lost the sight of the said fact. The learned Sessions Judge observed in his order that the allegation, A1 gave sedative to the deceased is not proved by the postmortem examination report, despite the fact that the postmortem report reveals that there are symptoms of administering drugs to the deceased. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect is factually incorrect. Earlier, the learned Sessions Judge rejected bail to the 2nd respondent/A1, but considered the second bail application on the ground that the 2nd respondent/A1 was in jail for the last 86 days as on the date of granting bail. The finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge on this aspect is factually incorrect. Earlier, the learned Sessions Judge rejected bail to the 2nd respondent/A1, but considered the second bail application on the ground that the 2nd respondent/A1 was in jail for the last 86 days as on the date of granting bail. He mentioned in the order that the progress of investigation has not been stated by the prosecution to know whether there are any changed circumstances or not and therefore the 2nd respondent/A1 is entitled for bail. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge having rejected the bail outright to A1 earlier, did not even state the changed circumstances enabling him to grant bail to A1. I do not think that the remand of A1 in judicial custody for 86 days would be a changed circumstance in any case to grant bail. This Court would be inclined to cancel the bail if the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. The way in which the bail was granted to the 2nd respondent/A1 by the learned Sessions Judge seems that it was granted on irrelevant consideration and ignoring the submissions made by the prosecution. In the instant case, from the very beginning, it is the version of the prosecution that if A1 is released on bail, he would interfere with the process of investigation and he would also intimidate the relatives of the deceased who are the witnesses in the instant case. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a native of Karnataka, staying in Hyderabad for business purpose and the 2nd respondent/A1 has been threatening him and his family members not to continue the prosecution against him. It is further submitted that the 2nd respondent/A1 has been sending some rowdy elements who have been coercing the petitioner and his family members not to depose against the 2nd respondent/A1. It is specifically stated that the 2nd respondent/A1 along with his associates came to the house of the petitioner on 06.09.2013 and 02.10.2013, threatened him to leave Hyderabad stating that if he failed to leave Hyderabad, he would also kill him. It is specifically stated that the 2nd respondent/A1 along with his associates came to the house of the petitioner on 06.09.2013 and 02.10.2013, threatened him to leave Hyderabad stating that if he failed to leave Hyderabad, he would also kill him. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the minor girl of his daughter (deceased) was in his custody after the death of the deceased, but the 2nd respondent/A1 after his release on bail took away the minor girl from his custody and kept her somewhere and blackmailing the petitioner. The leaned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/A1, however, submitted that the 2nd respondent/A1 admitted the said minor girl in a school and the allegation made on behalf of the petitioner is incorrect. From the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it appears that the 2nd respondent/A1, even while he was in jail, was threatening the petitioner and his family members by sending his men. After his release on bail, the 2nd respondent/A1 has allegedly been threatening the petitioner and his family members personally and also by sending his men. The petitioner apprehends danger to his life and that of his family members in the hands of the 2nd respondent/A1. Therefore, this is a case wherein the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge granted bail to the 2nd respondent/A1 on irrelevant considerations without applying his mind to the facts of the case and ignoring the relevant materials. This apart, there are reasonable grounds for the petitioner to apprehend that if the 2nd respondent/A1 is not taken into custody, there is every likelihood of intimidating the witnesses which would ultimately hamper the prospects of fair trial. Having regard to the facts of the present case and the circumstances under which the bail was granted and also taking into account the subsequent conduct of the 2nd respondent/A1, I am of the view that the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A1 is liable to be cancelled. Consequently, the bail granted to the 2nd respondent/A1 by the learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad vide orders dated 26.08.2013 in Crl.MP.No. 3173/2013 in Cr.No.442/2013 of Panjagutta Police Station, Hyderabad is hereby cancelled. The 2nd respondent/A1 shall be arrested forthwith. The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.