Criminal Original Petition No.6184 of 2008 is filed by the brothers son of the deceased who has been cited as one of the witnesses to the crime of murder and Criminal Original petition No.6661 of 2008 is filed by the Inspector of Police, Annamalainagar, Cuddalore District seeking to cancel the anticipatory bail granted by the learned Principal and District Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Crl.M.P.No.679 of 2008.

2. As both the petitions are connected with each other and the grounds set up in both the petitions are common, both the petitions were taken up together for common disposal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the second respondent in Crl.O.P.No.6184 of 2008 who also figures as the sole respondent in Crl.O.P.No.6661 of 2008 is hereinafter referred as the respondent.

4. The core allegation found in the first information report registered in Crime No.36 of 2008 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Annamalainagar, Cuddalore District would read that on 30.1.2008, at about 9.40 am, when the deceased was proceeding in his motor cycle towards his office situated at Vice Chancellor Bungalow Road, some unidentified persons came in a motorcycle and one of them drew out a sharp edged weapon viz., "Veecharival" and struck a heavy blow on the neck of the deceased who succumbed to the injuries. The first information report was lodged by one Pandian and the case was registered originally for offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and later on, it was altered to one under sections 147, 148, 341, 302 read with 149, 302 read with 120B and 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

5. The respondent filed an anticipatory bail application in Crl.M.P.No.679 on 2. 2008. Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, having adverted to the facts and circumstances of the case, granted anticipatory bail to the respondent on the following grounds:-

There was no mention of the name of the assailant in the first information report dated 30.1.2008. The case diary would reveal that there was no materials available to implicate the respondent herein. None of the witnesses was examined under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Absolutely there was no material to indicate the involvement of the accused in the case diary produced before him for perusal. The respondent has a social status and a permanent abode. Having cited the abovesaid reasons, the learned Principal Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the respondent.

6. The petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6184 of 2008 has contended that the application for anticipatory bail which was filed on 8. 2008 was original posted to 2. 2008, but, the same was advanced and taken up on 2. 2008 itself and order was passed at 8.00 pm in the Chambers of the Judge. The Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore has chosen to modify and relax the conditions imposed in the order granting anticipatory bail in quick succession within a short span of time. The application filed by the wife of the deceased seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail has been posted time and again for hearing and the same is still pending disposal. Some unknown persons warned the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6184 of 2008 and his family members with dire consequences. The wife of the deceased and her brother were threatened on 12. 2008 at Puthupatti in Pudhukottai District. A case has now been registered as against the respondent by the Inspector of Police K.Puthupatti in Crime No.28 of 2008 under sections 294 and 506(I) of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent/accused was granted a blanket order of pre-arrest bail without specifying the offences committed by him. He would tamper with the evidence collected. With the aforesaid material allegations, the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.6184 of 2008 has sought for cancellation of anticipatory bail.

7. The Inspector of Police, Annamalainagar, Cuddalore District, who has filed Crl.O.P.No.6661 of 2008 has alleged in the application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail in