Filing of charge sheet can not termed as change in circumstance.

1. The petitioner(C.B.L) is seeking for cancellation of the bail granted to the respondent herein on 1. 1996 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, in Crl.M.P.No. 7732 of 1995.

2. The brief facts are: On 27. 1994 at 4.30 hrs. one Sri.K.N. Vijayan a practicing Advocate of Madras was attacked when he has about to leave his house to New Delhi to attend a case before the Apex Court on 27. 1994. According to the prosecution, the respondent played a key role in organising this murderous attack on Advocate along with Sri.Madhavan, Leader of the M.G.R. Youth Wing in A.I.A.D.M.K. Party. The respondent herein is the Secretary of the Madras (South) District of the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam Party (A.I.A.D.M.K.). In order to please certain persons who are powerfully placed, he organised the attack using hirelings, booking a room in a lodge and paying money. When the complaint was registered at Kodambakkam Police Station while investigation was in progress, four unconnected persons to the Crime were made to surrender at the instance of the local police and the investigation was changed from C.B.C.I.D. to C.B.I. as per the orders of the Apex Court. The C.B.I. has filed the charge sheet on 12. 1995 for offences under Sections 143, 147,443,324,326,307 and 120-B read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Magistrate had taken cognizance and numbered it as P.R.C.No. 1 of 1995.

3. Before filing of the challan, the respondent herein filed an application for an anticipatory bail before this Court in Crl.O.P.No. 6091 of 1995 and this Court rejected the prayer for anticipatory bail holding that there is a prima facie case against the respondent and other accused. Keeping in view the past conduct, nature of accusation, severity of punishment, his behaviour, the manner adopted to attack namely, using the hirelings, retraction in the confession of Madhavan, local police using their unlimited resources made certain unconnected persons to surrender before the Magistrate pleading guilty, are factors weighed with the court to observe that there will be hostile atmosphere for conduct of proper investigation and there will be likelihood of psychic fear in the minds of the witnesses to come forward to give evidence against the respondent and other accused. The order rejecting the anticipatory bail was passed by this Court on 110. 1995. When anticipatory bail was rejected, he surrendered before XVII Metropolitan Magistrate and got remanded to judicial custody. While continuing in the hospital all efforts to get him to police custody within first fourteen days of his remand failed due to medical grounds and afterwards getting police custody also did not succeed as the first fourteen days period of remand expired by then. While he was in the hospital, he moved the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras for bail in Crl.M.P. No. 7228 of 1995. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, by order dated 211. 1995 observed thus: The petitioner has enough clout to effectively interfere with investigation by intimidating the witnesses and resorting to other means of tampering with evidence and therefore it is not proper to accept the plea for bail while the investigating machinery is facing an uphil task in discovering all the facts about the conspiracy”. Another application was filed by the petitioner while he was in the hospital in Crl.M.P.No. 7732 of 1995 before the same Judge. On 1. 1996 (within five weeks). The Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, granted bail to the respondent herein holding that possibility of tampering with evidence at the instance of the petitioner, who is well connected, is not an adequate ground for refusing bail. The circumstances weighed with the learned Judge are, (1). health grounds (2) charge sheet already filed and (3). On materials, no chance of tampering of witness Mr. Jagadish.

4. This order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madras, is attacked on the ground of propriety, judicial d