C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

1. This petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed by the widow of one deceased Gee Varghese who was allegedly murdered by the fourth respondent herein. In connection with the unnatural death of petitioner's husband, crime No. 183 of 2012 of Pampady Police Station was registered against the fourth respondent herein. After the investigation, filing of final report and committal, it is now pending before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Special), Kottayam as S.C. No. 276 of 2012 carrying an indiction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth respondent moved C.M.P. No. 2927 of 2012 thereon for grant of bail and the same was allowed with certain stringent conditions as per Annexure-VI order dated 24.9.2012. The petitioner herein seeks for quashment of Annexure-VI order and a further order to proceed with the trial keeping the fourth respondent as an under-trial prisoner considering the gravity and the nature of the offence. The conspectus of facts that constrained the petitioner to come up before this Court with such prayers is as follows:-

2. The fourth respondent who is accused of murdering her husband Gee Varghese was enlarged on bail as per order in C.M.P. No. 2927 of 2012 in S.C. No. 276 of 2012 mainly considering the fact that he had been in jail since 24.3.2012. As per Annexure-VI, the impugned order, the fourth respondent was enlarged on bail with the following conditions:-

(1) Execute bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount.

(2) He shall appear before the Circle Inspector of Police, Pampady on all Thursdays at 11 AM till the disposal of the case.

(3) He shall not intimidate witnesses while on bail.

(4) He shall not enter into the local limits of Pampady panchayat until further orders.

(5) He shall not leave Kerala without the permission of this court.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that taking into consideration the serious nature of the charge against the fourth respondent and his conduct and the threat posed by him to the lives of herself and her family members and also considering the hapless and helpless situation on account of her widowhood, it is only appropriate to quash the impugned order granting him bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the very case of the prosecution would reveal that the fourth respondent is an accused in another murder case viz. Crime No. 473 of 2011 which is also now pending before the same court as S.C. No. 267 of 2012 and both the sessions cases are now ripe for trial. The first information statement was given by the father of the petitioner. Therefore, the case of the prosecution is that on 18.3.2012, at about 7.15 pm, the fourth respondent criminally trespassed into the house of the daughter of the first informant with a view to commit murder of her husband Gee Varghese owing to previous enmity and stabbed Gee Varghese with a knife and on the way to Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, he succumbed to the stab injuries. The contention of the petitioner is that the learned Sessions Judge had not bestowed serious consideration into relevant and material facts. It is in the said context that the petitioner seeks for quashment of the impugned order and a further direction to the trial court to proceed with the trial against the fourth respondent. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent submitted that consideration of grant of bail and consideration of cancellation of bail stand on different footing and naturally, the scope of consideration is also bound to be different. It is also contended that the conditions imposed by the learned Sessions Judge while enlarging the fourth respondent on bail, as is obvious from Annexure-VI, would reveal that they are stringent and capable of averting the apprehension of the petitioner. It is submitted that condition No. 4 would reveal that the fourth respondent is interdicted from entering