ORDER : Heard the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C, by the Petitioner -State praying this Court to set aside the order dated 24.06.2019 passed in Crl.Misc.No.198/2019 on the file of Court of I Addl. District & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri, and to cancel the said order granting of bail for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. An accused was arrested and committed to custody. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the prosecution is that a double murder was committed. In the complaint, the sister of the deceased suspected the role of the respondent herein. Based on the same, a case has been registered and the matter was under investigation and at that juncture, the respondent has approached the Trial Court for grant of bail. 4. The Trial Court having heard the respective counsel appeared before the Trial Court, made an observation in paragraph No.10 of the order that the petitioner is in judicial custody from 02.05.2019 till today. The complainant has stated in her complaint that, because of enmity with her sister Kavitha, petitioner might have murdered her sister. Further observed that when there is no direct allegation against the petitioner regarding commission of an offence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in this case at this stage, which requires to be investigated by the police. Till then the petitioner cannot be put in Judicial Custody as a measure of punishment in the stage of pre-trial. Hence, granted bail. The same is questioned before this Court in this petition contending that the trial Judge has committed an error in enlarging the petitioner on bail in a heinous offence of double murder that too in a crime stage and failed to apply his mind. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the petitioner/State would contend that the blood stained weapons and clothes were subjected to FSL examination, which was recovered at the instance of the respondent. The said FSL report is also conclusive that the blood found on the said clothes and weapons belonged to the deceased and that of the blood stains of the clothes of the accused was also found. The said FSL report is also conclusive that the blood found on the said clothes and weapons belonged to the deceased and that of the blood stains of the clothes of the accused was also found. Apart from that, both post-mortem report of the deceased Kavitha, who is aged about 45 years would show six chop wounds and the post-mortem report of the deceased Jagashree, aged about 17 years, also would show five chop wounds and it is a barbaric act. Instead of waiting for the FSL report with regard to the recovery is concerned during the crime stage, the bail has been granted, the same is perverse and capricious. Hence, it requires an interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the case is rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there are no eyewitnesses to the incident and also the respondent was in the custody from the date of his arrest i.e., 02.05.2019 and the trial Judge while passing the order in paragraph No.10 discussed in detail that there is no direct allegation against the petitioner regarding commission of an offence. Hence, the matter requires to be investigated by the police and no need to continue him in the custody as a measure of punishment in the stage of pre-trial. Hence, the order does not amount to any perverse or capricious order. The learned counsel also would submit that after granting bail, the charge-sheet was also filed. Hence, it does not require any interference of this Court. 7. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the material available on record, particularly, the complaint, wherein, a specific allegation is made in the complaint that she comes to know about committing the murder of his sister and his sister’s daughter in the copy plantation, immediately she rushed to the spot found the dead body and murder was committed by using the deadly weapons and found chop wounds. A specific allegation is that due to previous enmity, suspected the role of the respondent and mentioned his name and based on the complaint a case has been registered on the very same day. The investigation is under progress when the bail order was passed. 8. A specific allegation is that due to previous enmity, suspected the role of the respondent and mentioned his name and based on the complaint a case has been registered on the very same day. The investigation is under progress when the bail order was passed. 8. Having perused the order, the prosecution also filed detailed objections opposing the bail application, wherein, specifically stated that there was a dispute between the petitioner and the deceased Kavitha regarding the pathway. In this regard, a civil case is also pending and argued that a prima facie case is made out against the respondent. The learned Judge while passing the order in paragraph No.10, no doubt, assigned the reason but stated that he is in custody from 02.05.2019, but comes to the conclusion that there is no direct allegation against the respondent. But on perusal of the complaint, it is very specific that there was an enmity between the deceased and the respondent herein. Apart from that, a reasoning given by the Trial Court is that when there is no direct allegation against the petitioner regarding commission of an offence, it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in this case at this stage. During the crime stage itself, the trial Judge has comes to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the petitioner was involved in the case. Apart from that, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that which requires to be investigated by the police. But exercised the discretion in favour of the respondent coming to the conclusion that he cannot be put in judicial custody as a measure of punishment. The very approach of the Trial Court is capricious and perverse and when the Court itself comes to the conclusion that it requires investigation by the police, when the double murder was committed, when a civil dispute is pending between the parties with regard to the pathway and the same is also brought to the notice of the Trial Court and when the recovery is also made at the instance of the accused on 02.05.2019 itself, within three days of committing the double murder i.e., weapon used and also the clothes of the accused and FSL report is also awaited, in a hurried manner that too in a double murder case granted bail even without waiting for filing of the charge-sheet and also receipt of FSL report. The bail is granted in a case of double murder within a span of two months and twenty two days and the reasons assigned in the order also shocking the conscience of the Court. The victim, aged about 45 years and it is also the specific case of the prosecution that when the daughter, who is the minor, aged about 17 years tried to take the snaps of assaulting his mother, he chased and committed the murder of 17 year old girl and in a barbaric act and an allegation is made that the trial Judge failed to even take note of the post-mortem reports, which disclose external injuries and chop wounds. There are six chop wounds on the victim Kavitha and five chop wounds on the other minor girl, who is aged about 17 years and the cause of death is also on account of shock and hemorrhage on account of chop wound injuries. When a heinous offence of double murder is committed in a callous manner, the Trial Court has exercised the discretion. 9. I have already pointed out that even not waited for receipt of FSL report with regard to the recovery is concerned and even till filing of the charge-sheet, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the case is rests upon the circumstantial evidence when there is no direct evidence. Now, the FSL report is also received and it clearly discloses the Articles -1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, the blood stains was detected and also it is clear that the blood group is ‘O’ group blood. These are the articles belongs to the accused as well as the deceased i.e., the clothes as well as the weapons used for committing the murder. Hence, it is a case to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. These are the articles belongs to the accused as well as the deceased i.e., the clothes as well as the weapons used for committing the murder. Hence, it is a case to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 10. This Court would like to rely upon the Apex Court judgment reported in (2021) 6 SCC 230 in the case of RAMESH BHAVAN RATHOD vs VISHANBHAI HIRABHAI MAKWANA (KOLI) AND ANOTHER with regard to exercising of the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C held that the Court has to look into the seriousness and gravity of offences committed and severity of punishment in the even of conviction, failure of High Court to consider while granting bail and in the absence of reasons also the order of granting bail in the present case held perverse and set aside the order of granting bail. It is further observed that necessity of recording reasons for grant or denial of bail though the Court considering bail application does not need to launch into detailed evaluation of facts on merits since criminal trail is still to take place, yet court granting bail cannot be oblivious of its duty to apply judicial mind and to record reasons, brief as they may be for the purpose of deciding whether or not to grant bail and further observed that mandatory duty of the court to record reasons when granting bail and grant of bail is a matter involving exercise of judicial discretion and judicial discretion in granting or refusing bail as in case of any other discretion which is vested in court as judicial institution, is not unstructured and duty to record reasons is significant safeguard which ensures that discretion which is entrusted to court is exercised in judicious manner and recording of reasons in judicial order ensures that thought process underlying order is subject to scrutiny and that it meets objective standards of reason and justice thus, bail order which does not contain reasons for prima facie concluding that bail should be granted is liable to be set aside for non-application of mind. 11. 11. The learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State also relied upon the reportable judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HARJIT SINGH vs INDERPREET SINGH @ INDER AND ANOTHER IN CRL.A.NO.883/2021 DATED 24.08.2021 and brought to the notice paragraph 17 wherein also the Apex Court held the Appellate Court is 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 Apex Court also referred the case of RAJESH KUMAR vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in 2019 SCC Online Raj 5197 in the said judgment and also in detail discussed paragraph 8 of the said judgment referring several judgment of the Apex Court regarding exercising of the powers under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 12. Having considered the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra as well as the factual aspects of the case, it is nothing but a perverse and capricious order passed by the Trial Court in a hurried manner without waiting for filing of a charge-sheet and the FSL report and came to the conclusion that the case is rests upon the circumstantial evidence and there is no direct evidence. When the sound circumstances are available against the respondent and the recovery was made at the instance of this respondent i.e., weapon used to commit the murder and the blood stained clothes immediately, the Trial Court ought not to have granted bail in favour of this respondent invoking Section 439 of Cr.P.C. Hence, the order of the Trial Court is capricious and perverse and it is a fit case to invoke Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. to cancel the bail and to set aside the order passed by the Trial Court in favour of this respondent allegedly committed double murder in connection with the prior enmity and also a civil dispute between the parties. Hence, when this respondent availed the benefit under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, he has to be taken into custody in view of the cancellation of bail. 13. Hence, when this respondent availed the benefit under Section 439 of Cr.P.C, he has to be taken into custody in view of the cancellation of bail. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 24.06.2019 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu at Madikeri in Crl. Misc. Nos.198/2019 granting bail to the respondent herein of Somwarpet police station for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside. This order shall be communicated to the Trial Judge forthwith and the Trial Judge is directed to take the respondent herein to the custody forthwith. Registry is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Presiding Officer, I Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Kodagu at Makikeri and if the said Presiding Officer is transferred, communicate the same to him where he is working at present for his academic purpose and not to pass perverse order in future.