ORDER : 1. This petition is filed by petitioner/accused No.4 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking his release on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 109, 143, 147, 148, 150, 506(B), 302 r/w Section 149 of IPC registered in respondent police station Crime No.238/2012. 2. The trial Court has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner invoking Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. in S.C.No.428/2013 by order dated 3.11.2017 and remanded the petitioner to the judicial custody. 3. Brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that, petitioner is accused No.4 in Crime No.238/2012. In respect of the incident dated 20.11.2012, petitioner was arrested on 22.11.2012 and remanded to judicial custody. This Court in Cr.P.No.8861/2016 granted bail to the petitioner by order dated 6.12.2016 and since then, he has been regularly attending the Court by complying with the conditions imposed. On 21.9.2017, prosecution filed an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. contending that C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar, an advocate practicing at Bangalore appeared before the trial Court in pursuance of summons issued to him and submitted that he received threat from mobile bearing No.8123784483 through a person by name Ramesh who is also a witness in the case. Submission of the witness was referred to Jurisdictional police and consequently, a case in crime No.149/2017 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 195(A) of IPC. Police also produced CD’s said to be the conversation of Ramesh with C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar. Petitioner has filed objection statement and after hearing both sides, the trial Court allowed the application and canceling the bail granted to the petitioner. It is submitted by the petitioner that C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar has identified the affidavit dated 18.6.2010 sworn by deceased Lingaraju. That apart, C.W.33 is not a witness against the petitioner attributing any overt act. Hence, the allegation that he threatened C.W.33 not to give evidence is fabricated for the reasons best known to him. It is stated that the mobile bearing SIM No.8123784483 is not connected to the petitioner and it is the very case of the prosecution that the said SIM number belongs to Ramesh. The said Ramesh and the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and given evidence. The CD’s produced before the trial Court along with the application for cancellation of bail is not supported by mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The said Ramesh and the petitioner appeared before the trial Court and given evidence. The CD’s produced before the trial Court along with the application for cancellation of bail is not supported by mandatory certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. That apart, the very case of the prosecution is that it was the conversation between Ramesh and C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar. Voice of the petitioner was not taken and subjected to expert opinion. It is stated that C.W.33, Sri.K.Dhruvakumar has been sending one or the other petitions to various authorities and his very nature is making allegation against different persons. Except vague and bald allegation made by C.W.33 against the petitioner, there is no material to prove that the petitioner indeed threatened him. Petitioner is innocent and he is ready to abide any reasonable conditions to be imposed by the Court. Hence, sought to allow the petition and to grant him bail. 4. The prosecution opposed the petition by filing objection statement contending that the petition is devoid of merits. It is submitted that this Court viewing very seriously the murder of an RTI activist has formed SIT(Special Investigating Team) for the purpose of efficient and fair investigation under the head of an ADGP rank officer and monitoring the investigation and trial in W.P.No.47342/2012. After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed against 12 accused persons for the said offences. This Court was pleased to grant bail to the petitioner herein on 6.12.2016 in Crl.P.No.8816/2016 by imposing strict conditions including the condition “The accused shall not threaten or prevail upon the prosecution witnesses”. But during the trial, when prosecution took summons for some of the witnesses including C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar, an important witness, the accused gave threatening call through one Ramesh’s mobile bearing No.8123784483 several times to the mobile of C.W.33 bearing No.9845170881. Hence, C.W.33 appeared before the Court on 31.7.2017 and produced several audio clips with requisition to provide protection, which was referred to jurisdictional police for necessary action. Police registered the case in Crime No.149/2017 under Section 195(A) of IPC and necessary action was taken after collecting call records and getting identification of voice of accused No.4 through C.W.33. Hence, C.W.33 appeared before the Court on 31.7.2017 and produced several audio clips with requisition to provide protection, which was referred to jurisdictional police for necessary action. Police registered the case in Crime No.149/2017 under Section 195(A) of IPC and necessary action was taken after collecting call records and getting identification of voice of accused No.4 through C.W.33. Accordingly, prosecution moved an application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking cancellation of bail contending that if the accused is released on bail, he is likely to repeat similar activities and since there is a danger to the prosecution witnesses, the accused is not entitled for bail and if he is released on bail, it will be difficult to conclude the trial within six months as directed by Hon’ble Division Bench on 11.10.2017. Since beginning of the trial the complainant, her family members, including the witnesses are tampered by the accused persons and because of this P.W.1 and majority of the witnesses resiled from the prosecution case. Though the Hon’ble Division Bench is monitoring the case, the accused one after other are indulged in tampering the prosecution witnesses, which itself shows that accused persons are not having regards for law and judiciary. After accused No.12 was granted with conditional bail in Crl.Misc.No.1038/2013 by this Court on 5.4.2013, on the same day, one Yamaiha, friend and supporter of accused No.8 has threatened the wife and children of deceased Lingaraju and on the complaint of C.W.1, wife of the deceased, a case in Crime No.77/2013 under Section 506 of IPC as registered in Chamrajpet police station, Bangalore and after investigation, charge sheet was filed before jurisdictional ACMM Court and registered in C.C.No.16879/2013. It is learnt that complainant has compromised with the said accused for monitory benefits at the instance of accused Nos.8 and 12 for Rs.8 crores and two houses. It is further submitted by the State that accused No.8 through his friends, relatives and well wishers is influencing the prosecution witnesses and tampering them is also established from the program relayed by TV 9 Kannada News Channel on 6.12.2014 under the caption “Yuddha Kanda” based on the sting operation conducted by the said Channel. The prosecution also seeks leave of the Court to raise additional grounds, if any, for rejection of the bail petition filed by accused No.4. On that ground, the prosecution sought for rejection of the bail petition. 5. The prosecution also seeks leave of the Court to raise additional grounds, if any, for rejection of the bail petition filed by accused No.4. On that ground, the prosecution sought for rejection of the bail petition. 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner-accused No.4 and also the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused No.4 during the course of his arguments has submitted that though there is an allegation that the petitioneraccused No.4 gave threat to C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar over phone, but the SIM number said to have been used by the petitioner is not in his name and it is in the name of one Ramesh Babu. He also submitted that the application is filed by the prosecution mainly with an intention to cancel the bail of the petitioner and for sending him behind the bar. The petitioner never gave such threatening calls to the witness C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar. Though it is the contention of the prosecution that regarding the said conversation over phone, CD’s are produced before the Court, the trial Court was not supposed to look into the CDs unless and until the conditions of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act are strictly complied with. It is also his submission that no voice of the petitioner was taken in the presence of the trial Court for the purpose of comparison as to whether the said alleged conversation is by the petitioner/accused No.4 himself. The application filed before the trial Court seeking cancellation of his bail is totally baseless. The trial Court without considering all these serious factual and legal aspects, has wrongly proceeded to order for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, he has submitted to allow the petition and to release the petitioner on bail. 7. Percontra, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State has submitted that there is a prima facie material placed by the prosecution to show that such threatening calls were given by the petitioner to C.W.33 Sri.K.Dhruvakumar. He has submitted that C.W.33 is an important witness in the case and because of the seriousness of the case, the Division Bench of this Court is monitoring the progress in the trial of the case. There is also time frame fixed to complete the trial of the case within six months. He has submitted that C.W.33 is an important witness in the case and because of the seriousness of the case, the Division Bench of this Court is monitoring the progress in the trial of the case. There is also time frame fixed to complete the trial of the case within six months. The said witness Sri.K.Dhruvakumar to whom the witness summons was issued, was very much present before the trial Court and submitted that there was a threatening call to him by the petitioner-accused No.4. This itself is sufficient to show that petitioner gave such threatening calls to the witness C.W.33. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has also submitted that the petitioner/accused No.4, if released on bail, will tamper the prosecution witnesses and will not cooperate with the early disposal of the case within the time frame granted by the Division Bench of this Court. All these aspects were properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has rightly, cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and taken him into custody. Hence, he has submitted that in view of these developments, petitioner is not entitled for his release on bail and there is no merit in this petition and accordingly, sought to dismiss the petition. 8. I have perused the grounds urged in the bail petition, the objection statement filed by the prosecution to the bail petition, the charge sheet material produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, so also, the order of the learned Sessions Judge in canceling the bail of the petitioner-accused No.4. 9. Looking to the factual matrix of the case, C.W.33 Sri.K Dhruvakumar is cited as witness on the side of the prosecution. Now the trial of the case is going on in S.C.No.428/2013. When summons were issued to the witnesses and also to C.W.33, he was present before the Court and made an application stating that on 22.7.2017, he had received six calls from one Ramesh Babu one of the witness of the said case from mobile No.8123784483. In the said mobile another person by name Gowripalya Chandra also spoke to him. He has further stated in his application that on 24.7.2017 and also on 27.7.2017 he again received the telephone calls from the above mentioned two persons and he has recorded the entire conversation in his mobile phone bearing No.9845170881. In the said mobile another person by name Gowripalya Chandra also spoke to him. He has further stated in his application that on 24.7.2017 and also on 27.7.2017 he again received the telephone calls from the above mentioned two persons and he has recorded the entire conversation in his mobile phone bearing No.9845170881. Therefore, he submitted to the Court that there is a threat to his life and as such, it is not possible for him to give evidence in the case because of the threat posed by the petitioner-accused No.4 along with the witness Ramesh Babu. On the said application, the concerned Sessions Court issued directions to the Dy.S.P, South Division, to give protection to the C.W.33 Dhruva KUmar and also to his family members. Materials also show that the audio clips regarding the conversation recorded in the form of CD’s were also produced before the trial Court. Then the concerned police have also registered the FIR as against the present petitioner accusedNo.4 and also against one Ramesh Babu in their police station Crime Number 149/2017 for the offence punishable under Section 195(A) of IPC. 10. The main contention of the petitioner herein that the SIM with which the conversation alleged to have been made does not belong to the petitioner, but it belongs to one Ramesh Babu. Even the voice of the petitioner was not recorded for the purpose of comparing the same with the voice said to be in the C.D. When the witness himself was personally present before the Court and made such application before the Court bringing it to the notice that there is a threat and and even he has produced the CD containing the conversation and after preliminary enquiry, the police also registered the FIR both against the petitioner-accused No.4 and as well as against one Ramesh Babu, through whose mobile and the SIM card the conversation was made with C.W.33, only on the ground that the SIM is not in the name of petitioner-accused No.4, the entire material on the side of the prosecution cannot be rejected to grant bail to petitioner-accused No.4 herein. Crime is already registered and the investigation has also started. The final report is to be submitted by the concerned Police. Further, the Division Bench of this Court is also monitoring the progress of the trial as per the order granted in the Writ Petition No.47342/2012. Crime is already registered and the investigation has also started. The final report is to be submitted by the concerned Police. Further, the Division Bench of this Court is also monitoring the progress of the trial as per the order granted in the Writ Petition No.47342/2012. It has also fixed the time frame of six months to complete the trial in the said case from the date of order dated 11.10.2017. 11. I have also perused the decision relied upon by the learned Sessions Judge in his order regarding cancellation of bail, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2890 in the case of Mehboob Dawood Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra wherein paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 of the said decision reads as under: “9. It is, therefore, clear that when a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. Rejection of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not to be lightly resorted to. 10. It is undisputed that an affidavit of Police Inspector attached to Control Room, Solapur was filed which indicated the threat given to the complainant in the court premises on 16.7.2003. Merely because in the evidence recorded there is no reference to the threat, that does not go to prove the negative or sufficient to infer that there was no such threat. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at least some reference should have been made to the threat. That there was no such reference, according to us, is really of no consequence. The evidence was being recorded with regard to the incident dated 11.10.2002 and not in relation to a subsequent event which is the subject matter of consideration in the case registered in relation to the alleged threat. In the affidavit it has been clearly mentioned that a case (CR No.3097/2003) was registered under Section 188, IPC in relation to the threat. 11. In the affidavit it has been clearly mentioned that a case (CR No.3097/2003) was registered under Section 188, IPC in relation to the threat. 11. It is fairly accepted by learned counsel for the appellant that nothing seem to have been urged by way of reply to the affidavit or the truth or otherwise to the contents thereof before the High Court, as the order impugned shows. That being so, the appellant cannot make a grievance that no enquiry was made to find out the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the affidavit. As there were allegations prima facie showing that the witnesses have been threatened, a ground for cancellation of bail did exist.” The principle enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above said decision is subsequent to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge which are also referred in the cancellation order i.e., the decisions reported in AIR 1978 SC 179 in the case of Gurcharan Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Administration) and AIR 1984 SC 372 in the case of Bhagirath Singh Judeja Vs. State of Gujarat. In view of the principle enunciated in the decision reported in AIR 2004 SC 2890 , I am of the opinion that the learned Sessions Judge before passing the order of cancellation of bail has considered each and every aspect of the matter in detail and by a considered order cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner herein. 12. It is true that the present bail petition filed before this Court is not a revision nor an appeal against the order of the learned Sessions Judge, but to know the materials involved in the case, I made reference to the order of the learned Sessions Judge. 13. Considering all these materials and the serious allegations against the petitioner, for which, prima facie material is placed by the prosecution, so also, in view of registration of the FIR against both the petitioner and one Ramesh Babu, who is also said to be the witness in the said case, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case for grant of bail. Accordingly, petition is hereby rejected.