JUDGMENT 1. This application under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been registered for cancellation of bail on suo motu exercise of power by this Court while considering the bail application of the co-accused Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu in Criminal Appeal No.5870/2021. 2. The prosecution case in short is that the complainant Upendra Singh Jatav made a complaint to the police that about 6-7 days back his neighbor Shyamlal was beaten by Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Daplu S/o Nathu Singh Narwariya and respondent-Gajendra Singh Narwariya and thereafter they took the injured to Gwalior and from thereafter, whereabouts of Shyamlal are not known. On the aforesaid information, an enquiry was initiated and statement of witnesses in Merg enquiry were recorded. The Police found that in fact the deceased Shyamlal was beaten by Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Daplu @ Omkar and respondent-Gajendra by Lathi and thereafter they took the deceased to Gwalior and got him admitted in J.A. Hospital Gwalior in the fake name of Nathuram S/o Hukum Singh. The injured Shyamlal, who was admitted in the hospital by co- accused Omkar Singh in the name of Nathuram s/o Hukum, expired on 08/06/2020. Accordingly, the dead body of Shyamlal was handed over to Omkar Singh after the postmortem. It appears that the dead body of Shyamlal, who was admitted in the fake name of Nathuram, was not brought in the village and his cremation was done somewhere else and since whereabouts of Shyamlal was not known, therefore, his neighbor Upendra Singh had made a report to the Police. 3. During the Merg enquiry, statement of witnesses were recorded, who claimed that the name of deceased was Nathuram and ultimately those statements were found to be incorrect. Thus, the Police after completing investigation, has filed the charge-sheet against the Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Omkar Singh and present respondent-Gajendra Singh apart from Ghanshyam, Ravindra, Vinod Sharma, Smt. Sangeeta, Upendra Singh Jatav, Jarman Singh Narwariya, Hotam Singh Narwariya and Sudamalal Kadere. The allegations against the remaining co-accused persons are that they had given false information to the Police. Thus, there are two sets of accused persons which are as under : 1. The allegations against the remaining co-accused persons are that they had given false information to the Police. Thus, there are two sets of accused persons which are as under : 1. Sikander Singh Narwariya @ Lalu, Omkar @ Daplu and Gajendra Singh (respondent) against whom it is alleged that not only they had assaulted the deceased Shyamlal by Lathi, but they took him to the hospital and got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and after the death of Shyamlal on 08/06/2020, who was admitted in the fake name of Nathuram, his dead-body was received by co-accused Omkar and it was not brought to the village and the cremation was done somewhere else in Gwalior itself. 2. Whereas, the allegations against the remaining co-accused persons are that they had given false information to the Police that Nathuram had fallen from the roof of the house and he died in the hospital. 4. The co-accused Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu filed Criminal Appeal No.5870/2021 for grant of bail and while arguing the said bail application, it was submitted that the Sessions Judge, Bhind has granted bail to the present respondent in BA No.978/2021 and the case of Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu is identical to that of the present respondent-Gajendra Singh. 5. While considering the submissions made by the counsel for Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, this Court found that the Sessions Judge, Bhind had granted bail by observing certain aspects, which were not born out of the record and in fact they were contrary to the record. As already pointed out, there are two sets of accused persons in the present case. Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Omkar alias Daplu and Gajendra are alleged to have assaulted the deceased Shyamlal by Lathi and thereafter they took him to the hospital and got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and after the death of Shyamlal on 8/6/2020, his dead body was also received by co-accused Omkar and it was not brought to the village and the cremation was done somewhere else in Gwalior itself. Thus, the allegation against Sikandar Singh Narvariya alias Lalu, Omkar alias Daplu and Gajendra Singh are that they had not only killed Shyamlal, but they also got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and thereafter, they also succeeded in getting a fake death certificate in the name of Nathuram, whereas the allegations against the second set of accused persons are that they had tried to mislead the police by saying that in fact Nathuram had expired and not Shyamlal. 6. However, during the course of investigation, it was found that Nathuram had already expired in the year 2013 and the information given by the second set of accused persons was wrong. 7. However, the bail was granted to Gajendra Singh by the Sessions Judge, Bhind by order dated 10/8/2021 in BA No.978/2021 with the following observations:- 'According to prosecution case, on dt. 29.05.2020 or 31.05.2020 at or about 07:00 to 08:00 AM accused person nemly Gajendra Singh, Sikandar Singh, Omkar Singh, Sudama Kadere, Hotam Singh, Jarman Singh, Upendra Singh & Sangeeta Narwariya has assaulted the Nathuram S/o Hukum Singh with Dandas, as seized from the accused persons. The said Nathuram sustain various injuries including vitol part and succumbed to the injuries. Ld. Counsel for the applicants submitts that, applicant is in custody from February 2021 and Hon'ble High Court has granted bail to other coaccused. Applicant is redy to submits proper security. Hence, he be relased on bail. The prayer is opposed by the Ld. Spl. G.P. for the State. Record of the SC ATR Case No. 71/2021 dt. 18.05.2021 perused. As per Para-11 & 12 of the Arrest memo dt. 19.02.2021 it is transpired that, applicant is not dangerous, he has no previous criminal record, he is not habitual offender and there is no possibilities fleeing from justice. The applicant has no crime antecedent. Investigation is over and Chalan has been filed on 18.05.2021. Further custodial interrogation is no more required and no purpose would be served to continue incarceration of applicant. Co-accused Jarman Singh, Smt. Sangeeta, Upendra Jatav, Hotam Singh has been enlearged on bail by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in CRA No. 4328/21, CRA No. 4204/21, CRA No. 3964/21 & CRA No. 4075/21 respectively. Role of the applicant is not specifically mentioned in the Charge-Sheet. Co-accused Jarman Singh, Smt. Sangeeta, Upendra Jatav, Hotam Singh has been enlearged on bail by Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior in CRA No. 4328/21, CRA No. 4204/21, CRA No. 3964/21 & CRA No. 4075/21 respectively. Role of the applicant is not specifically mentioned in the Charge-Sheet. Considering the above facts and looking to special circumstances of second wave Covid-19 pendemic and that early conclusion of the trial is a bleak possibility and looking the nature and gravity of accusations, means and standing of the applicant, danger of applicant absconding, if granted Bail and reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced and applying the doctrin of parity this Court deem it proper and fit to enlarge the applicant on Bail. Accordingly, the Bail Application dt. 04.08.2021 is hereby allowed.' 8. Considering the aforesaid mistake committed by the Sessions Judge, Bhind while granting bail to the co-accused Gajendra Singh this Court observed as under:- 10. Thus it is clear that the Sessions Judge, Bhind has mentioned that the allegation against Gajendra, appellant, Omkar Singh, Sudama Kadere, Hotam Singh, Jarman Singh, Upendra Singh and Sangeeta Narwariya are similar as all of them had assaulted Nathuram S/o Hukum Singh with dandas whereas the aforesaid observation is completely false and there are no allegation of assault against Sudama Kadere, Hotam Singh, Jarman Singh, Upendra Jatav and Sangeeta Narwariya. Further, the Court below has held that the High Court has also granted bail to the co- accused Sangeeta Narwariya by order dated 29/7/2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.4204/2021, the co-accused Jarman Singh passed in Criminal Appeal No.4328/2021 to Upendra Singh by order dated 9/7/2021 passed in Criminal appeal No.3964/2021 to Hotam Singh passed in Criminal Appeal No.4075/2021. 9. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent as to why the bail granted to him by the Sessions Judge, Bhind in BA No.978/2021 by order dated 10/8/2021 be not recalled. 10. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the statement of Hirasingh has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in which he has not named the respondent as one of the assailants. 10. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that the statement of Hirasingh has been recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., in which he has not named the respondent as one of the assailants. However, after going through the statement of Hirasingh recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., it is admitted by the counsel for the respondent that Hirasingh in his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. has not claimed himself to be an eyewitness, but he had specifically stated that he was informed by the persons who had gathered there. 11. No other argument was advanced by the counsel for the respondent and he even did not try to justify the reasons on which the respondent was granted bail by Sessions Judge, Bhind in BA No.978/2021 by order dated 10/8/2021. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Harjit Singh vs. Inderjeet Singh @ Inder and another by order dated 24/8/2021 passed in CRA No.883/2021 has held as under: 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. Before considering the rival submissions on behalf of the respective parties, few decisions of this Court on how to exercise the discretionary power for grant of bail and the duty of the appellate court, particularly when bail was refused by the court(s) below and the principles and considerations for granting or refusing the bail are required to be referred to and considered. 7.1 In the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (1978) 1 SCC 240 , this Court has observed and held that deprivation of freedom by refusal of bail is not for punitive purposes but for the bifocal interests of justice. The nature of the charge is a vital factor and the nature of the evidence is also pertinent. The severity of the punishment to which the accused may be liable if convicted also bears upon the issue. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. The Court has also to consider the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. Another relevant factor is whether the course of justice would be thwarted by him who seeks the benignant jurisdiction of the Court to be freed for the time being. The Court has also to consider the likelihood of the applicant interfering with the witnesses for the prosecution or otherwise polluting the process of justice. It is further observed that it is rational to enquire into the antecedents of the man who is applying for bail to find out whether he has a bad record, particularly a record which suggests that he is likely to commit serious offences while on bail. 7.2 In the case of Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9 SCC 446 , this Court in paragraphs 17 to 19 observed and held as under: '17. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person. Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum. Needless to emphasise, the sacrosanctity of liberty is paramount in a civilised society. However, in a democratic body polity which is wedded to the rule of law an individual is expected to grow within the social restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an individual is expected to live with dignity having respect for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is a well- accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed to be trivialised. The life of an individual living in a society governed by the rule of law has to be regulated and such regulations which are the source in law subserve the social balance and function as a significant instrument for protection of human rights and security of the collective. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, 'it is regulated freedom'. 18. It is because fundamentally laws are made for their obedience so that every member of the society lives peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while discussing about liberty opined, 'it is regulated freedom'. 18. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice requires that law and order should prevail in a civilised milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the adjudication should express not only application of mind but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and established norms. Law and order in a society protect the established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes do not become epidemic. In an organised society the concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be responsible and not to disturb the tranquillity and safety which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing J. Oerter stated: 'Personal liberty is the right to act without interference within the limits of the law.' 19. Thus analysed, it is clear that though liberty is a greatly cherished value in the life of an individual, it is a controlled and restricted one and no element in the society can act in a manner by consequence of which the life or liberty of others is jeopardised, for the rational collective does not countenance an anti-social or anticollective act.' 7.3 In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sitaram Popat Vetal, (2004) 7 SCC 521 , it is observed and held by this Court that while granting of bail, the following factors among other circumstances are required to be considered by the Court: 1. The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence; 2. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and 3. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. It is further observed that any order dehors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; and 3. Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. It is further observed that any order dehors such reasons suffers from non-application of mind. 7.4 In the case of Mahipal v. Rajesh Kumar (2020) 2 SCC 118 , where the High Court released the accused on bail in a case for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and other offences recording the only contention put forth by the counsel for the accused and further recording that 'taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing the opinion on merits of case, this Court deems fit just and proper to enlarge/release the accused on bail', while setting aside the order passed by the High Court granting bail, one of us (Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud) observed in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under: '11. Essentially, this Court is required to analyse whether there was a valid exercise of the power conferred by Section 439 CrPC to grant bail. The power to grant bail under Section 439 is of a wide amplitude. But it is well settled that though the grant of bail involves the exercise of the discretionary power of the court, it has to be exercised in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh (2002) 3 SCC 598 , Umesh Banerjee, J. speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, laid down the factors that must guide the exercise of the power to grant bail in the following terms: '3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order - but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustained. Needless to record, however, that the grant of bail is dependent upon the contextual facts of the matter being dealt with by the court and facts, however, do always vary from case to case. ... The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. ... The nature of the offence is one of the basic considerations for the grant of bail - more heinous is the crime, the greater is the chance of rejection of the bail, though, however, dependent on the factual matrix of the matter. 4. Apart from the above, certain other which may be attributed to be relevant considerations may also be noticed at this juncture, though however, the same are only illustrative and not exhaustive, neither there can be any. The considerations being: (a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the nature of evidence in support of the accusations. (b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for the complainant should also weigh with the court in the matter of grant of bail. (c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge. (d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.' 12. The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straitjacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trial. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused subserves the purpose of the criminal justice system. Where bail has been granted by a lower court, an appellate court must be slow to interfere and ought to be guided by the principles set out for the exercise of the power to set aside bail. 7.5 That thereafter this Court considered the principles that guide while assessing the correctness of an order passed by the High Court granting bail. This Court specifically observed and held that normally this Court does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court granting or rejecting the bail to the accused. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. This Court further observed that the power of the appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for cancellation of bail. It is further observed that the correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was a proper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. It is further observed that the test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. Thereafter this Court considered the difference and distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate court granting bail in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under: '13. It is further observed that the test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. Thereafter this Court considered the difference and distinction between an application for cancellation of bail and an appeal before this Court challenging the order passed by the appellate court granting bail in paras 13, 14, 16 and 17 as under: '13. The principles that guide this Court in assessing the correctness of an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting bail were succinctly laid down by this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee (2010) 14 SCC 496 . In that case, the accused was facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. Several bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. The High Court in turn allowed the bail application filed by the accused. Setting aside the order [Ashish Chatterjee State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1-2010 (Cal)] of the High Court, D.K. Jain, J., speaking for a two-Judge Bench of this Court, held: '9. ... It is trite that this Court does not, normally, interfere with an order [Ashish Chatterjee v. State of W.B., CRM No. 272 of 2010, order dated 11-1- 2010 (Cal)] passed by the High Court granting or rejecting bail to the accused. However, it is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in compliance with the basic principles laid down in a plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. It is well settled that, among other circumstances, the factors to be borne in mind while considering an application for bail are: (i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence; (ii) nature and gravity of the accusation; (iii) severity of the punishment in the event of conviction; (iv) danger of the accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail; (v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the accused; (vi) likelihood of the offence being repeated; (vii) reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being influenced; and (viii) danger, of course, of justice being thwarted by grant of bail. 10. 10. It is manifest that if the High Court does not advert to these relevant considerations and mechanically grants bail, the said order would suffer from the vice of nonapplication of mind, rendering it to be illegal.' 14. The provision for an accused to be released on bail touches upon the liberty of an individual. It is for this reason that this Court does not ordinarily interfere with an order of the High Court granting bail. However, where the discretion of the High Court to grant bail has been exercised without the due application of mind or in contravention of the directions of this Court, such an order granting bail is liable to be set aside. The Court is required to factor, amongst other things, a prima facie view that the accused had committed the offence, the nature and gravity of the offence and the likelihood of the accused obstructing the proceedings of the trial in any manner or evading the course of justice. The provision for being released on bail draws an appropriate balance between public interest in the administration of justice and the protection of individual liberty pending adjudication of the case. However, the grant of bail is to be secured within the bounds of the law and in compliance with the conditions laid down by this Court. It is for this reason that a court must balance numerous factors that guide the exercise of the discretionary power to grant bail on a case- by- case basis. Inherent in this determination is whether, on an analysis of the record, it appears that there is a prima facie or reasonable cause to believe that the accused had committed the crime. It is not relevant at this stage for the court to examine in detail the evidence on record to come to a conclusive finding. 16. The considerations that guide the power of an appellate court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the anvil of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion in the grant of bail. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified. On the other hand, an application for cancellation of bail is generally examined on the anvil of the existence of supervening circumstances or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail has been granted. In Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. (2014) 16 SCC 508 , the accused was granted bail by the High Court [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P.[ 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031]. In an appeal against the order [Mitthan Yadav v. State of U.P., 2014 SCC OnLine All 16031] of the High Court, a two- Judge Bench of this Court surveyed the precedent on the principles that guide the grant of bail. Dipak Misra, J. held: '12. ... It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail have not been taken note of, or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court.' 17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment. The order [Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 5197] of the High Court in the present case, insofar as it is relevant reads: '2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that, the deceased was driving his motorcycle, which got slipped on a sharp turn, due to which he received injuries on various parts of body including ante-mortem head injuries on account of which he died. Counsel further submits that the challan has already been presented in the court and conclusion of trial may take long time. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application. 4. Considering the contentions put forth by the counsel for the petitioner and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.' Thereafter this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail.' Thereafter, this Court set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the accused on bail. 13. If the allegations made against the respondent are considered, then it is clear that the respondent was one of the assailants who caused injury to the deceased Shyamlal and subsequently got him admitted in the hospital in the fake name of Nathuram and also got a death certificate prepared in the name of Nathuram. Thus the case of the respondent Gajendra Singh was clearly distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons who were granted bail. Thus the case of the respondent Gajendra Singh was clearly distinguishable from the case of other co-accused persons who were granted bail. The Court below while granting bail to the respondent Gajendra Singh ignored the material facts as well as the distinction in the allegations made against the respondent and other co-accused persons who were granted bail by the High Court. In fact the Court below went to the extent of saying that the allegation of assaulting the deceased are against all the accused persons in order to falsely project that the case of the respondent is on parity with the co-accused persons who have been granted bail by the High Court. Thus the Court below committed a glaring mistake by overlooking the allegations made against the respondent and conveniently ignored that he is one of the accused who is charged with offence of murder and not of giving false information to the police with regard to the identity of the deceased. Thus the bail was granted to the respondent by the Court below without any application of mind by ignoring the material facts. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 10.8.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in B.A.No.978/2021 is bad in law and has been passed contrary to the record. Under these circumstances, the order dated 10.8.2021 passed by Sessions Judge, Bhind in B.A.No.978/2021 is set aside. The respondent is directed to immediately surrender before the Trial Court latest by 24/1/2022. In case if the respondent fails to surrender before the Trial Court by 24/1/2022, then the Trial Court shall immediately issue warrant of arrest against him. 14. Before parting with this order, it is not out of place to mention here that since it was found that Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi, Sessions Judge, Bhind is in the habit of passing orders contrary to law, therefore, it was directed that the matter be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for action on administrative side. 15. It appears that Shri Axay Kumar Dwivedi filed SLP (Cri.) No.9149/2021 and it was dismissed by the Supreme Court by order dated 26/11/2021 with the following observations:- 'We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.' 16. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.' 16. Accordingly, the Principal Registrar of this Court is directed to place the copy of the order dated 26/11/2021 passed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Cri.) No.9149/2021 as well as the copy of this order immediately before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for further information. 17. With aforesaid observations, the application is finally disposed of.