( 1 ) THIS Rule at the Instance or the petitioner Amjad Sheik who was arrested in connection with a case under Section 304, I. P. C. , is directed against an order, of the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Malda cancelling his bail and ordering that he should be forthwith taken into custody. It appears that after his arrest the petitioner was placed in custody by the Magistrate who refused his prayer for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge being moved granted his bail. Subsequently on behalf of the prosecution a petition was made before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge alleging that the petitioner was tampering with evidence and praying for the cancellation of his bail. On that petition the learned Addl. Sessions Judge went into evidence allowing the petitioner full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution. On the evidence before him he came to the finding that the allegations made against the petitioner were correct and well founded and made the order now challenged.

( 2 ) IT is not disputed before us that on the evidence before him the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was correct in taking the view that he did, viz. ,