JUDGMENT : Ali Mohd. Magrey, J. 1. This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the order of learned Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sopore, dated 27.01.2016, passed in bail application, whereby two applications filed by the complainant, seeking cancellation of interim bail granted vide order dated 06.03.2015, in favour of accused namely Gaffar Lone, Satar Lone, Ghulam Rasool Lone and Ghulam Mohammad Ganai in case FIR No. 94/2012, Police Station Bomai under Section 302, 307, 148, 341, 354, 34 RPC have been rejected and are seeking quashment of the orders dated 27.01.2016 along with order dated 06.03.2015. Brief facts: During the year 2012, the dispute arose on a well, when the ladies of the accused persons did not allowed the petitioner to get the water from the said well and scuffle took place between the ladies of both the sides and meanwhile, as alleged the accused persons came along with Danda's and Iron rods striked the head with the fatal blow of Iron rod and wooden danda's with the result the husband and other two brother of the petitioner's husband also sustained injuries but the husband of the petitioner was so serious and he was referred by the Sub-District Hospital, Sopore to SKIMS, Soura, where he succumbed to injuries and two brothers of deceased were treated accordingly hence FIR No. 94/2012 came to be lodged against, as many as nine accused persons and final report came to be filed by P/S Bumia, Sopore at Sessions Court at Baramulla, and the trial against accused started and were charged under Section 302, 307, 148 RPC and thereafter the prosecution evidence was called by the Court which is going on, and on 15.03.2015, the said Court released the four accused persons on interim bail by virtue of Court order dated 15.03.2015. 2. It is averred that the said order was put to challenge the petitioner under Section 561-A Cr. P.C. which was disposed of by the Court with the direction to rehear the bail application/cancelation of interim bail afresh and pass orders accordingly the Court passed rejection order thereby rejected the application for cancellation of bail and interim bail so granted was made absolute. 3. P.C. which was disposed of by the Court with the direction to rehear the bail application/cancelation of interim bail afresh and pass orders accordingly the Court passed rejection order thereby rejected the application for cancellation of bail and interim bail so granted was made absolute. 3. It is averred that the Court below has taken two grounds while considering the interim bail application which is no way supported by any such solid proof or ground on which Court below has relied thus the Court below has given concession to the four accused persons in heinous and carrying capital punishment also when a young person deceased has lost his life in the hands of accused persons. 4. It is further averred that the petitioner remain in dark when the Court below has granted bail to the four accused persons on the ground of old age and health ground which is not true because to ascertain the truth the petitioner filed an application wider RTI about the determination of age of accused Ghulam Rasool (Lasse Lone) who was a Government Employee in response to the said application the report reveals that the age of the said accused is only 50 years as per copy of service book. 5. Needless to mention that petitioner Gulshan Begum-complainant prior to filing of the instant petition, had filed petition under Section 561-A Cr. PC bearing No. 47/2015 to invoke the inherent powers of this Court, seeking setting aside and quashment of order dated 06.03.2015, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, whereby the learned trial Court has enlarged the four out of nine under trials in FIR No. 94/2012, Police Station, Bomai on bail and this Court in terms of order dated 19.05.2015, while declaring the petition not maintainable in that form disposed of the petition with the following directions:- "In light of the above peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is ordered as under: (i) This petition, for the reasons mentioned above vis-à-vis its merits, is dismissed. (ii) The trial Court is directed to hear and consider the bail applications forthwith and pass appropriate final orders thereon; (iii) The final disposal of the bail applications is likely to take its time. On the other hand, the four accused are out without there being any order to that effect. This is what the records sent to this Court reveal. On the other hand, the four accused are out without there being any order to that effect. This is what the records sent to this Court reveal. The trial Court shall take immediate steps to rectify the irregularity, unless of course, such is not the case." 6. It is how the trial Court has decided the application seeking cancellation of bail in terms of the impugned order. Grounds pressed into service are detailed out as under:- 7. It is submitted that because the orders impugned have not been passed in consonance with law deserves to be set aside. Because the orders impugned are bad in law and deserves to be set aside. 8. It is submitted that the orders have been passed in a mechanical manner so deserves to be set aside. Now to give rise to a question whether a private person can invoke the jurisdiction of Hon'ble High Court by filing Revision petition the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically in number of judgments reiterated that the private person has got right to invoke Revisional jurisdiction as has been held in 2000 CrLJ (SC) 2778 and AIR 2003 SC 3318 so the petitioner is the wife of the deceased who was murdered by the accused persons without any cause or reason. 9. It is averred that because court below has not taken parameters which are necessary while granting bail in nefarious offence where the punishment is capital and accusation is serious, the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting the evidence. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of witness and apprehension of treat to complainant and the remaining witness. Because the court has not recorded the Prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge therefore court below has erred in passing the order of rejection of application of the petitioner. 10. Reasonable apprehension of tampering of witness and apprehension of treat to complainant and the remaining witness. Because the court has not recorded the Prima-facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge therefore court below has erred in passing the order of rejection of application of the petitioner. 10. It is submitted that the court below has not considered the severe-ness of offence nor has given thoughtful consideration on accusation and evidence lead by prosecution and its gravity to convict the accused, when the accusation is same against all the accused and case is proved beyond any doubts so how the court has separated the other accused persons to consider them in bail, so under the given circumstances the court below has not reasoned the order as to how the co-accused have been separated from other accused persons who are facing trial meaning thereby there is glaring abuse of process of law. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the records and considered the matter. 12. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel for the private respondents submitted that the complainant cannot seek cancellation of the bail when the State is satisfied with the order, besides the bail has been granted in favour of the elderly persons with reference to the reasons supplied by the trial Court. It is further averred that the trial Court has not committed any error or illegality, which has the effect of resulting in miscarriage of justice by enlarging the four accused on bail. It is submitted that the trial Court has recorded definite findings with supportive material justifying the bail in favour of aged and ailing accused. It is submitted that the accused are sick, ailing, aged and infirm so their cases have been considered by the trial Court for the grant of bail and while considering the application for bail under the proviso appended to Section 497 Cr. P.C. the Court has not to go into the seriousness of the offences, if it is proved before the Court that the accused are aged, ailing and sick, then bail is to be granted under proviso appended to section 497 Cr. P.C. the Court has not to go into the seriousness of the offences, if it is proved before the Court that the accused are aged, ailing and sick, then bail is to be granted under proviso appended to section 497 Cr. P.C. To support his arguments he has sought support from the Judgment 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 518 SC and 2010 (2) Crimes 778 (Kar.), wherein it has been held that in the cases where the accused are aged, ailing and sick, the bail shall be granted to such aged and infirm accused. He has also sought support from 2006 (2) Criminal Case (SC), wherein it has been held that where accused are ailing and aged 79 years and 76 years, bail to be allowed on condition that accused shall make themselves available as and when required by investigating agency for the purpose of investigation/trial. 13. Mr. M.A. Qayoom, learned counsel for private respondents submitted that the accused were languishing in the custody for last more than four years and they were only male members of their families and there was no one to look after their families with their continued and illegal detention, their families have been subjected to hardships and irreparable loss. Learned counsel further submitted that the purpose of granting bail to the accused is to ensure that he/she makes himself/herself available and if this purpose can be secured by keeping the accused in the custody of sureties instead of police then the courts should not be loathe in admitting the accused to bail. Learned counsel has supported his argument by referring the case law reported in 2008 AIR (Cri) 803 and 2009 AIR (Cri) 285. On the other hand learned appearing counsel for the petitioner-complainant submitted that all the accused are involved in the commission of heinous offences and all the witnesses who have been examined by the prosecution have implicated the accused for the commission of offences. It is submitted that the prosecution witnesses examined have in clear and unequivocal terms stated that when the verbal altercations was going on between the women folk of both the parties, the accused hit the deceased with the lathi and all the above mentioned witnesses have stated that not only but all the nine accused beat the deceased with the lathis whereby he got killed. So when all the witnesses who are eye witnesses to the occurrence have stated in clear and unequivocal terms that the deceased was killed by the blows inflicted by all the accused so the accused, as such, are not entitled for the grant of bail and it cannot lie in the mouth of the defence to allege that the witnesses have not implicated the accused for the commission of the offences. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents-accused has also referred to and relied upon the Judgment of this Court delivered by the Division Bench in case Pt. Madan Lal Sharma v. Rakesh Kumar reported in 2010 (4) JKJ 402 [HC], whereby this Court while dealing with the merits of the case with reference to seeking cancellation of bail has held that once the bail has been granted, it cannot be withdrawn unless proved to have been abused and that is no longer conducive in large interest of the justice that the accused to remain on bail. The accused once released on bail, can be cancelled, only if it is found that the accused has tampered with the evidence of prosecution witnesses with a view to thwart the course of justice. 15. In the present case the petitioner has not pleaded that the respondents-accused have abused the bail granted or they have tampered with the evidence of prosecution witnesses with a view to thwart the course of justice. Petitioner has also not brought on record any material which amounts to accused having abused the grant of bail. In the view of the matter also, this petition is not sustainable. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Court below has not considered the record on the file and has shut eyes to the evidence which has come on the record and on the basis of evidence the accused will get convicted. Learned counsel while strengthening his argument referred to and relied upon the Judgment 2007 Air (Criminal) 788, 2008 AIR (Criminal) 346 and AIR 2003 Supreme Court 3318. They have also supported with the ground that revision petition is maintainable. 17. While granting bail, the trial Court has discussed the material on record and the portion relevant being taken note of: "Admittedly the provisions of Section 497 Cr. They have also supported with the ground that revision petition is maintainable. 17. While granting bail, the trial Court has discussed the material on record and the portion relevant being taken note of: "Admittedly the provisions of Section 497 Cr. P.C. place on embargo to grant bail in cases where there appear reasonable grounds of involvement of the accused in the offences carrying sentence of death or imprisonment for life. However, subject to some leniency in case of a women, child or a sick person. From the conjoint reading of the two clauses section 497 Cr.P.C., it is amply clear that Court can exercise its judicious discretion to grant bail even in offence carrying sentence of death or imprisonment for life conjunctively, where there appear no reasonable grounds of involvement of the accused in the said offence. The consideration at the time, the bail application is taken up for disposal is different from the consideration to be adopted at the end of the trial for holding man guilty or not guilty. In considering an application for bail, the Court is not required to conduct a preliminary trial of the case and consider the probability of the accused being found, guilty or innocent. The Courts while deciding such applications will be traversing beyond their proper ambit and would be exceeding the limit of their functions if they engage themselves in discovering the guilt or innocence of the accused/applicant which can only be determined at the trial state. Court may however, incidentally turn to the evidence with a view to examining the question of allowance or refusal of bail with reference to the principles governing release or detention pending proceedings. I am conscious that Court should not go at a tangent in order to find-out possible excuses for granting bail whether there are reasonable grounds or not is a question which must be decided judicially, that is to say, there should be some tangible evidence on which the Court might come to the conclusion that if un-rebutted the accused might be convicted. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of such offence depends on what evidence offered by the prosecution to the charge against him. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of such offence depends on what evidence offered by the prosecution to the charge against him. In order to come to a conclusion that a person is guilty, the Court must consider the evidence which if unrebutted might led to the conclusion that the charge against him stands proved, it can justifiably hold that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is guilty. Admittedly in case of non-bailable offences, which do not carry the sentence of death or imprisonment for life in alternative, bail is a rule and its denial an exception especially where there is nothing on record to show that the accused if admitted to bail will jump over the concession of bail and will tamper with the prosecution witnesses (Jawaher Barua v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1973 JKLR 74 ). It is a trite that two paramount considerations viz: likelihood of accused, fleeing from justice and his tampering with prosecution evidence relate to the ensuring of fair trial of the case in a court of justice. It is essential that due and proper weightage should be bestowed on these two factors apart from others. The requirements as to bail are merely to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial, as has been held in cases cited as, Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179 ; G. Nara Simhula v. Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 S. C 429; Assad Ullah Khan and others v. State of J&K SLJ 1980 J&K 31; Jeet Ram and etc. v. State of H.P., 2003 Cr. Law Journal 736]. Bail or jail at the pre-trial or post conviction stage belongs to the blurred area of the criminal justice system and largely hinges on the hunch of the bench otherwise called judicial discretion. Personal liberty deprived when bail is refused is too precious a value of our constitutional system recognized under Article 21 that the crucial power to negate it is a great truest exercisable not casually but judiciously with lively concern for the cost to the individual and the community. After all personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in G. Nara Simhula v. Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 429 ). After all personal liberty of an accused or convict is fundamental, suffering lawful eclipse only in terms of procedure established by law (per Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer in G. Nara Simhula v. Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh AIR 1978 SC 429 ). Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking rejection of bail. It is now well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with the evidence. If there is no prima facie case, there is no question of considering other circumstances (Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat AIR 1984 SC 372 ). It is also a settled legal position that mere gravity of offence and severity of punishment is no ground for rejection of bail application especially where there is no allegations that if released on bail, the accused is likely to abscond with a view to evade the trial and secondly where there is no material on record to show that in the event of bail, the accused is likely to tamper with the prosecution witnesses (Jagram v. State of Haryana 1996 (1) RCR 575' Jeet Ram and etc. v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2003 Cr. Law Journal 736). In State of Rajasthan Jaipur v. Balchand AIR 1977 SC 2447 Per V.R. Krishna Iyer and N.L. Untwalia JJ. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held, "basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or incriminating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held, "basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail not jail, except where there are circumstances of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or incriminating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. It is also well settled that the bar imposed under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the exercise of the discretion in the matters of bail subject to proviso contained in the section, is confined to the offences carrying a sentence of death or imprisonment for life in alternative and even the offence carrying the sentence of imprisonment for life disjunctive of death sentence are exempted from the embargo (JKJ Soft JKJ/1009 : 1973 JKLR 74 "Jawahar Barua v. State of J&K"; AIR 1975 SC 1705 : AIR 1977 SC 2447 "State of Rajasthan Jaipur v. Bal Chand; JKJ Soft JKJ/3 : SLJ 1980 J&K 31 "Assadullah Khan v. State"; AIR 1984 S.C. 372 Bhajirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat"' and JKJ Soft JKJ/22883 : 1987 KLJ 237 "Mohinder Singh v. State"; AIR 1978 SC 429 : "G.N. Nara Simhula v. Public Prosecutor Andhra Pradesh", AIR 1978 SC 179 , Gurcharan Singh v. State (Delhi Administration)" 1981 Cr.LJ 1313 "Satyan petitioner v. State". Nowadays the Hon'ble Apex Court and the other authoritative High Courts of our Country are not focusing on any single golden rule or litmus test for consideration of a bail application, but the following guidelines/governing principles have been laid down for the courts and the Magistrates to be kept in mind while considering a bail application.:- 1. The judicial discretion must be exercised with the utmost care and circumspection; 2. That the Court must duly consider the nature and the circumstances of the case including; 3. Reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered; 4. Investigation being hampered or 5. The judicial process being impeded or subverted. The liberty of an individual must be balanced against the larger interests of the society and the State. 6. The court must weigh in the judicial scales, pros and cons varying from case to case all along bearing in mind two paramount considerations viz: 7. Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule; 8. 6. The court must weigh in the judicial scales, pros and cons varying from case to case all along bearing in mind two paramount considerations viz: 7. Grant of bail quo an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life is an exception and not the rule; 8. The court at this stage is not conducting a preliminary trial but only seeking whether there is a case to go for trial; 9. The nature of the charge is the vital factor, the nature of evidence is also pertinent, the punishment to which the party may be liable also bears upon the matter and the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses or otherwise polluting the course or justice; 9. The facts and circumstances of the case play a predominant role. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Gur Bakash Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1632 , referred to the following extract from the American Jurisprudence having bearing on the subject of bail, Where the grant of bail lies within discretion of the court, granting or denial is regulated to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. Since the object of detention order imprisonment of the accused is to secure his appearance and submission to jurisdiction and the judgment of the court, the preliminary enquiry is whether a recognizance or bond would effect that end. It is thus clear that the question whether to grant bail or not depends for its answer upon a Variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which must enter into the judicial verdict. Any one single circumstance cannot be treated as of universal validity or as unnecessarily justifying the grant or refusal of bail. I reiterate for addressing to myself that at this stage of trial even if few of the prosecution witnesses have been examined, the scope for perusing and considering the evidence is of very limited scope only for the purpose of exploring a genuine possibility of consideration of the bail in favour the accused subject to the final out come of the case. It is settled legal position that the real question is whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person is guilty of offence depends upon what evidence is offered by the prosecution to prove the charge against him and while reaching such conclusion, the court must consider the nature and character of the evidence against him. It is also well settled that a reasonable delay in trial against the accused person constitutes a justifiable ground for considering the bail application. I have gone through the evidence recorded during the investigation and especially the evidence of material witnesses pws 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 who in their examination have stated that the all accused were involved in the commission of the offences to the extent that all the nine accused assaulted deceased with lathi blows whereby he got seriously injured and latter succumbed to injuries. The material witnesses recorded in the case have implicated the accused so plea raised by accused that witnesses have not deposed against them and have not implicated them does not seem to be correct or based on reality. The other material witnesses are yet to be examined so at this stage in view of the fact witnesses have implicated the accused for commission of offences and other important witnesses are yet to be examined so application filed for grant of bail in favour of the accused other than those in whose favour additional bail under proviso being without merit as such merits rejection and is accordingly rejected. Now coming to the additional applications filed under the proviso appended to sec 497 Cr. P.C. it has been contended that all these four accused are old, aged and infirm so they may be admitted to bail. In case cited as (1985) 12 Cri LJ 359 J&K it has been held that where accused charged for offence punishable with death or life imprisonment is not entitled for bail but however, if accused infirm and old and suffering from some decease then in such circumstances accused entitled to be released on bail on such grounds. Further in a case cited as 1982 CriLJ 2019 it has been held that infirmity is naturally concomitant with old age and where accused are old and infirm bail to be granted. Further in a case cited as 1982 CriLJ 2019 it has been held that infirmity is naturally concomitant with old age and where accused are old and infirm bail to be granted. Similarly in authorities cited at the bar by the counsel for the petitioners such as 2006 (2) Criminal Court Cases 518 SC and 2010 (2) Crimes 778 (Kar.), wherein it has been held that in the cases where the accused are aged, ailing and sick, the bail shall be granted to such aged and infirm accused and also 2006 (2) Criminal Case (SC) wherein it has been held that where accused are ailing and aged 79 years and 76 years- Bail to be allowed on condition that accused shall make themselves available as and when required by investigating agency for the purpose of investigation. While dealing with this part of the application I am reminded of the law laid down by Hon'ble Patna High Court in a case cited as "Nishant Kumar Guddu v. State of Bihar Crimes 2008 (1) 425 which deserve the needful mention as under: "This being regularly observed that judicial act as regards the bail jurisdiction has become errant. The courts are passing orders on bail petitions to reject the prayer merely by looking to the section of an offence and not considering the allegations or other facts and circumstances of the case. It has resulted in filing of huge petitions before this Court and the list does not appear to be deciding in near future or being within manageable limit as regards the capacity and present strength of this Court. As such, I would like to suggest to the officers among the original courts where prayer for bail are generally made, to tune themselves to the situation so as to act freely and fearlessly in true exercise of their jurisdiction." There is nothing on record to show that accused/petitioner being old, aged and infirm if admitted to bail will misuse the concession by absconding at the trial or repeating the commission of crime charged against them. Tested against the backdrop of aforementioned legal principles evolved by the authoritative courts, I in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case having utmost regard for the evidence so for recorded at the trial and perusal thereof only for the limited purposes of ascertainment of a genuine ground for consideration of bail and while hesitating to make any comment on the admissibility, veracity and the reliability of the evidence, am of the considered opinion that a reasonable ground appears to be made-out for admitting the old and aged and sick petitioners/accused to bail at this stage subject to the conclusion of the trial. Since the accused are aged, ailing and sick and the prosecution has failed to prove that accused are of such a character that they will jump the concession of bail if granted, I in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case having utmost regard of the age, sickness and infirmity of the accused and for the evidence so for recorded at the trial and perusal thereof only for the limited purposes of ascertainment of genuine ground for consideration of bail and while hesitating to make any comment on the admissibility, veracity and the reliability of the evidence, am of the considered opinion that a reasonable ground appears to be made-out for admitting the petitioners/accused who are aged, ailing and sick to bail at this stage subject to the conclusion of the trial." 18. The minute examination of the order with supportive material leaves no scope for declaring the order as illegal. The order is based on reasons and also protects the interests of the complainant with reference to ensuring appearance of the accused during trial. 19. In the above background, this revision petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected Cr. MPs. No order as to costs.