JUDGMENT

 Special Leave granted.

2. Ordinarily this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders either granting or refusing to grant bail to an accused person either facing a criminal trial or whose case after conviction is pending in appeal. However, this is not a case where bail is granted or refused but the order granting the bail by the learned Sessions Judge was set aside by the High Court adopting an approach which does not commend to us.

3. It is alleged that the appellant gave blows with a knife to one Popatlal Sorathia, who had come to visit an indoor patient Navalsinh Bhatti on August 11, 1983 around 9.45 A. M. Appellant was accosted by the policeman on duty. An offence under S. 307, I. P. C. was registered against him and the appellant was taken into custody and was subsequently remanded to judicial custody. An application for releasing him on bail was made on August 22, 1983 to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot was pleased to dismiss the same by his order dated August 29, 1983.

4. On the same day, an application for releasing the appellant on bail was moved before the learned Sessions Judge. A notice was issued to the learned Public Prosecutor. After hearing both the sides, the learned Sessions Judge by a well-reasoned order directed that the appellant be released on bail on his furnishing security in the amount of Rs. 5000/- and personal bond of the like amount.

5. It appears that the State of Gujarat filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 1724 of 1983 in the High Court of Gujarat seeking cancellation of the order granting bail to the appellant. A learned single judge of the High Court held that once a prima facie case is established the learned Sessions Judge ought to have taken into consideration the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence is committed. The charge against the appellant is that he has committed an offence punishable under Sec. 307, I. P. C. and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and even on the date of hearing of this appeal before us on November 18, 1983, the Court was informed that the victim is alive and at present there is no danger to his life. Nearly 3 months have rolled by from the date of the offence. We fail to understand what the learned Judge of the High Court desires to convey when he says that once a prima facie case is established, it is necessary for the court to examine the nature and gravity of the circumstances in which the offence was committed. If there is no prima facie case there is no question of considering other circumstances. But even where a prima facie case is established, the approach of the court in the matter of bail is not that the accused should be detained by way of punishment but whether the presence of the accused would be readily available for trial or that he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence. We would have certainly overlooked this aspect of the matter if the approach of the learned judge was otherwise one which would commend to us. It however appears that the learned judge was impressed by some of the most irrelevant considerations which prima facie emerge from the following observations of the learned Judge which permeates his whole order running into about 13 pages. Says the learned Judge :

"The learned Judge ought to have seen the fact that the helpless victim had gone to the hospital for pre-operation checkup. He was a leading social and political worker. He was an active worker and Secretary of "Gundagiri Nivaran Samiti" which had raised a campaign against the atrocities allegedly having been committed by the Rajputs of Girasiya community. Admittedly the respondent is Girasiya and the complainant who was an active worker and Secretary of Gundagiri Nivaran Samiti had become a victim at the hands of the respondent. The learned Judge ought to have taken into consideration the material fact that the incident had taken place in the prem