JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner before this Court seeking for cancellation of bail granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Belgaum in Criminal Misc.No.452/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201 and 120-B r/w 34 of IPC arising from Murgod P.S. Crime No.287/2018. 2. The petitioner is before this Court was the original complainant who had filed a complaint before the Gokak Rural P.S. Crime No.184/2017 stating that she was residing at Mamadapur village along with her husband since last more than 10 years. She was the second wife of Mehboobsab Bevingidad and they were together doing vegetable business and leading happy married life. On 15.08.2017, her husband had been to the market at Hirenandi but did not return. She enquired with the villagers, when she was informed that her husband had not come to the market hence she filed a missing complaint before the Gokak Rural P.S. on 16.08.2017. The police found the dead body of her husband at Dasnal canal on 21.08.2017. On 22.08.2017, the petitioner had lodged one more complaint before the police which came to be registered as P.S.Crime No.287/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein who are accused Nos.1 and 2 therein for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 302, 201, 120B r/w 34 of IPC. 3. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 preferred an application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., seeking for bail. The trial Court vide its order dated 18.03.2019 was pleased to grant bail to the petitioners by imposing certain conditions. The said bail was granted by the Sessions Court on the ground that the charge sheet has been filed against the accused and their presence in judicial custody was no longer required. Hence, among other conditions imposed, there are specific conditions imposed that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution witness/evidence or involve themselves in any offences. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had approached this Court by filing objection on 31.05.2019 seeking for cancellation of bail stating that subsequent to such grant of bail respondent Nos.2 and 3 are torturing mentally and threatened to kill the wife of the deceased and her children. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order had approached this Court by filing objection on 31.05.2019 seeking for cancellation of bail stating that subsequent to such grant of bail respondent Nos.2 and 3 are torturing mentally and threatened to kill the wife of the deceased and her children. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 knowing fully well that if petitioner were to depose in the matter, respondent Nos.2 and 3 are likely to be convicted are threatening the petitioner and have called upon the petitioner not to depose in the matter. 5. While the above matter was pending, the wife of the deceased Ameenama had filed a complaint on 29.08.2019 alleging that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had on 26.08.2019 at about 10.30 a.m., threatened her and her children with dire consequences, if she were to depose against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 they had also warned her that she would meet the same fate as her husband, if she deposed against them. Subsequently, another complaint came to be filed on 21.12.2019, stating that respondent Nos.2 and 3 had assaulted her in the market place and once again warned her that she should not depose in the matter. She had suffered injuries and therefore had been treated in a hospital at Gokak. The wound certificate has also been produced to show that there is a deep wound on her right wrist, right elbow and contusion on the right side of the chest and right side of the lower back. 6. The petitioner submits that a crime No.154/2019 has also been registered in regard thereto. Subsequent to the filing of the petition Sri Harshawardhan Patil, counsel would contend that those have to be taken into consideration by this Court and the bail granted to respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be cancelled since there is a clear and categorical violation of the terms of the bail. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 have tried to tamper with the prosecution witnesses as also indulged in further offences. 7. Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel submits that the complaints as field are make believe and they have been so filed only to create records and seek for cancellation of bail granted. The fact that the complaints have been filed subsequent to the filing of the above petition would indicate that they are got up documents. 7. Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel submits that the complaints as field are make believe and they have been so filed only to create records and seek for cancellation of bail granted. The fact that the complaints have been filed subsequent to the filing of the above petition would indicate that they are got up documents. She further submits that in terms of the various decisions rendered by this Court, any person seeking for cancellation of bail would have to approach the same Court which had granted bail since that Court would be seized all the facts relevant to the matter and could adjudicate on the same properly and effectively. She relies on the judgment of this Court in Mangesh Kaisare v. State of Karnataka, reported in LAWS (Kar) 2014 6 71 , in support of the above contention. She also relies upon the decision of this Court in The State of Karnataka v. Sri Manjunath N . in Criminal Petition No.3277/2018 and connected matters and State of Karnataka v. Dharmesh in Criminal Petition No.7912/2016, to contend that in a petition for seeking cancellation of bail, the petitioner would have to make out extraordinary circumstance and grounds for such cancellation. The petitioner in the present matter has not made out any such ground. Therefore, the petition is liable to dismissed. 8. She further submits that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were assaulted on 20.10.2019 and in this regard respondent Nos.5 and 6 have also filed a complaint with the jurisdictional police and that respondent Nos.2 and 3 have been injured in such assault. Therefore, she submits that the complaint filed by the petitioner is false and that complaint filed by the Ameenma wife of the deceased is false and that filed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 is a genuine one. The matter is now posted for trial on 10.03.2020 therefore since the accused have been on bail from 18.03.2019, they should be allowed to continue on bail even now. She states that if any further conditions are imposed by this Court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would comply with the same. 9. The matter is now posted for trial on 10.03.2020 therefore since the accused have been on bail from 18.03.2019, they should be allowed to continue on bail even now. She states that if any further conditions are imposed by this Court, respondent Nos.2 and 3 would comply with the same. 9. Learned HCGP submits that she has only been served with the memo dated 17.02.2020 enclosing the complaint filed by Smt. Ameenma-wife of the deceased and the wound certificate and on that basis she submits that there appears to be violation of the terms and conditions of the bail granted and therefore the same is to be cancelled. 10. Heard Sri Harshawardhan Patil, learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. P.G.Nayk, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1 and perused the documents produced along with petition. The objections filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 as also the memo along with documents filed today by the petitioner and as also the order dated 18.03.2019 passed by the Sessions Judge, Belagavi. 11. Having perused the order dated 18.03.2019, passed by the Sessions Judge, Belagavi, it is seen that the only reason why the respondent Nos.2 and 3 were enlarged on bail was that the charge sheet had already been filed and there would be no requirement for the petitioners therein to continue in judicial custody. 12. Sri Harshawardhan Patil, learned counsel has produced along with a memo today, the complaint along with postal acknowledgement filed by the wife of the deceased, 107 proceedings which have been conducted thereon. The FIR and second complaint filed by the wife of the deceased on 21.12.2019, the wound certificate and MLC report, a perusal of the same would prima facie establish that accused Nos.2 and 3 have threatened Smt. Ameenma-wife of the deceased who is going to be an important prosecution witness. The complainant has also been threatened in similar terms. Thus, this would amount to interference and or tampering with the prosecution witnesses. He further submits that it is on account of the above threatening that the complainant and the wife of the deceased have been able to go to the Court and depose in that proceedings and that is the reason why the prosecution has been taking time in the matter. 13. Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel has filed objections along with a counter complaint filed on the same date. 13. Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel has filed objections along with a counter complaint filed on the same date. She today filed a memo along with wound certificate in respect of accused Nos.1/respondent No.2 and contend that it is the complainant and deceased of wife who had assaulted respondent No.2. A perusal of the memo and wound certificate does not in fact reflect any wound having been caused. The only remarks found in the physical examination is that due to some assault, he had suffered giddiness and suffered unconscious lasting for about half an hour and the MLC indicates that there was general body ache. Hence, he has administered with over the counter drugs. The said complaint does not in any manner indicate or establish any assault having been carried out on respondent No.2. Hence this Court is of the opinion that at this stage the said complaint has been filed by respondent No.2 expected the wife of the deceased to file a complaint on account of the assault committed on 20.12.2019. The wound certificate produced by the petitioner supports the complaint filed by the petitioner. Per contra, the wound certificate produced by the respondent No.2 does not in any manner support the case of the respondent No.2. 14. Though Smt. P.G.Naik, learned counsel contends relying on the judgment of this Court cited above, that normally the application for cancellation of bail would have to be moved before the Court which granted the bail. In the present facts and circumstance, when it is brought to the notice of this Court, such blatant violation of the terms imposed while granting the bail. This Court can also exercise its jurisdiction to cancel the bail in suitable circumstances. This case put forth herein establishes such suitable circumstances for exercise of this Court powers. 15. The other two decisions relied upon by the Smt. P.G.Naik, as regards the application for cancellation of bail would have to make out extraordinary circumstances, this Court while agreeing with the said decision is of the opinion that the assault alleged to have been committed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the wife of the accused, is an extraordinary circumstances to cancel the bail granted. 16. 16. Sri Harshawardhan Patil, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Honble Apex Court in Manoj Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, reported in (2018) 4 Crimes 367, wherein in similar circumstances where a bail had been granted by the Sessions Court and the complainant had approached the High Court for cancellation thereof and the High Court refuse to entertain such an application. The Honble Apex Court held that, when the accused had violated the terms and conditions of the bail granted and were tampering with the prosecution witnesses, the bail granted ought to be cancelled. 17. Applying the said dicta to the present case, the bail granted to accused Nos.2 and 3 on 18.03.2019 in Criminal Misc.No.452/2019 is hereby cancelled. The accused i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 shall be taken into custody immediately. The respondent police are also directed to provide security to the complainant pending the trial. In view of the above circumstances, it would also be just and proper to direct the Sessions Court to expedite the trial. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible and since it has been submitted that the case is posted on 10.03.2020 for evidence, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter within six months form 10.03.2020. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that the observations made above are only for the purpose of cancellation of bail. The trial Court will proceed and dispose of the matter before it without being influenced by any of the observations made herein.