ORDER WP(Crl.) No. 204/2018 1. Shri Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-accused has made a prayer for consolidation of the criminal cases pending against the petitioners. The number of criminal cases that are pending against the accused in the State of Jharkhand is about 18. Obviously in each case the prosecutor is the State of Jharkhand and the accused are common. It is also possible that some of the witnesses in the various trials are common. 2. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we consider it appropriate to direct that all the criminal cases pending against the petitioners in the State of Jharkhand shall be consolidated and conducted in the Court designated by the District Judge, Ranchi. This will also facilitate witness protection. 3. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.A. No. 2702/2018 & M.A. No. 2703/2018 4. On 15.12.2017, this Court directed the petitioners in the special leave petitions, namely Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw and Smt. Nirmala Devi to be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees One Lakh only) each etc. The Court further imposed the following conditions: "1) The petitioners shall stay in the city of Bhopal; 2) They shall not enter the State of Jharkhand, except for attending the court, and in the case of Nirmala Devi to attend the assembly also. The petitioners shall enter the State of Jharkhand duly escorted by the Jharkhand police and the expenses for the same shall be borne by the State of Jharkhand for such visits; 3) They shall not contact any witness and shall not tamper with any evidence; 4) They shall be entitled to travel to other States after giving due intimation to the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal after disclosing their destination; and 5) They shall surrender their passport, if any in the trial Court at Jharkhand. 5. Today the prosecution has moved the applications bearing Nos. M.A. NO. 2702/2018 & M.A. NO. 2703/2018 for cancellation of the bail on account of breach of conditions. At the outset, we do not consider it necessary to consider the application for cancellation of bail for Nirmala Devi since we find that the deviations alleged are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of bail. M.A. NO. 2702/2018 & M.A. NO. 2703/2018 for cancellation of the bail on account of breach of conditions. At the outset, we do not consider it necessary to consider the application for cancellation of bail for Nirmala Devi since we find that the deviations alleged are not serious enough to warrant cancellation of bail. The learned counsel for the applicants however, seriously pressed the application for cancellation of bail granted to Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw. 6. We find the application is pressed on three counts. Firstly, that the order of this Court contemplates that he shall stay in Bhopal and go to Jharkhand only for attending the Court, whereas he has consistently breached that condition by leaving Bhopal unauthorizedly and going to Jharkhand. We might record that Jharkhand is the place of the crimes for which he has been charged and it was found appropriate to prevent him from moving around in Jharkhand. Secondly, the ground urged is that he has threatened witnesses and thirdly, he has created a hindrance in court proceedings. We do not propose to go into these last two grounds as it is not possible to test the truth of the allegations at this stage. However, we find sufficient force in the first ground, namely, his unauthorized absence from Bhopal and corresponding presence at Jharkhand. 7. Learned counsel for the prosecution has placed before us a chart from which it appears that he has left Bhopal on several occasions and gone to Jharkhand. His presence in Jharkhand appears to be undisputed in view of the fact that there are several details, including PNR Nos. showing that he has travelled to Jharkhand along with dates on which he is supposed to have reached Jharkhand. There are mobile call details which show that he called from his cell phone No. before transit at a particular airport and after transit at the destination. Though there are some instances when Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw seems to have travelled because of hearing of the case at Jharkhand, there are several instances when his absence at Bhopal and presence in Jharkhand is unexplained and is obviously unauthorized. 8. We also find from the record of cases pending at Jharkhand that Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw has been absent on several dates meant for framing charges. 8. We also find from the record of cases pending at Jharkhand that Yogendra Sao @ Yogendra Saw has been absent on several dates meant for framing charges. It is unnecessary to go into further details in the matter as we are satisfied that the conditions imposed by order dated 15.12.2017 have been breached. 9. We accordingly, consider it appropriate to allow M.A. No. 2702/2018 and cancel the bail granted to him on 15.12.2017. We reject the application bearing M.A. No. 2703/2018 against Nirmala Devi. Ordered accordingly. M.A. No. 164/2019 & M.A. No. 165/2019 10. In view of order passed in MA Nos. 2702/2018, 2703/2018 and WP(Criminal) No. 204/2018, these applications are disposed of without any orders.