Valid and substantiated allegations are required to justify the cancellation of bail, and compliance with bail conditions can be a relevant factor in such decisions.

ORDER :

1. This criminal petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is filed to cancel the bail that was granted to the accused in Crime No. 202 of 2021 of Gadivemula Police Station, Kurnool District, by the impugned order dated 13.09.2021 passed in Crl. M.P. No. 169 of 2021 on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

2. The accused are A-1, A-4, A-6 to A-9 in Crime No. 202 of 2021 of Gadivemula Police Station, Kurnool District. A case under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was registered against them.

3. It is a case of double murder. It is the version of the prosecution that the respondents 3 to 8 herein along with other accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and attacked the two deceased persons, who are brothers and committed murder of the said two persons.

4. The accused herein were arrested on 25.06.2021. Thereafter they were remanded to judicial custody. Earlier two bail applications filed by the accused were dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The 2nd bail application was dismissed on 25.08.2021. Thereafter, 3rd bail application was filed by them and it was allowed on 13.09.2021 enlarging said accused on bail on certain conditions.

5. Wife of one of the deceased has now filed this petition for cancellation of the said bail that was granted to the accused in the above crime on the ground that there are no change of circumstances for grant of bail after dismissal of the earlier bail application. It is also alleged that the accused through their men have been threatening the witnesses and interfering with the process of investigation. Therefore, on the aforesaid two grounds, the bail that was granted to the said accused is now sought to be cancelled.

6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for the respondents/accused.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the second bail application was dismissed on 25.08.2021, the 3rd bail application was allowed immediately on 13.09.2021 without there being any change of circumstances to entertain the said bail application. He would submit that absolutely there are no change of circumstances after dismissal of the earlier bail application and as such the impugned order granting bail to the accused is legally unsustainable. He would further submit that a representation was submitted by the petitioner herein stating that the accused through their men have been threatening the witnesses and thereby interfering with the process of investigation and the same is not being considered. Therefore, he would contend that as the accused are interfering with the process of investigation and making an attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence, that they are not entitled to bail and he would submit that the bail that was granted to them is liable to be cancelled. Therefore, on the aforesaid grounds, he sought for cancellation of the bail.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that a condition was imposed that the accused shall not enter the village and the accused have been complying with the said condition. He would further submit that no complaint was received by the police stating that the accused are making any attempt to threaten the witnesses through their men and that they have been interfering with the process of investigation. He would submit on instructions that the accused are not making any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence. He would also submit that the entire investigation in this case is completed and about 48 witnesses have been examined and only R.F.S.L. report is awaited to file the charge sheet. Therefore, he opposed the petition filed by the petitioner.

9. The respondents/accused have filed their counter denying the material averments made in the petition. It is stated that the respondents have been com