JUDGMENT :

V. Parthiban, J.

1. The above criminal appeals are filed against the common order dated 26.6.2019, passed by the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, made in Crl. M.P. Nos. 576 to 583 of 2019 in Spl. S.C. No. 31/2019, dismissing the bail applications filed by the appellants/accused. These appellants are accused A-12 to A-15, who were charged for the offences u/s. 120 (B), 201 r/w 120 (B), 302 r/w 120 (B), 471 r/w 120 (B), 468 r/w 120 (B), 465 r/w 120 (B), 384 r/w 120 (B), 325 r/w 120 (B), 364 r/w 120 (B) IPC and u/s. 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 120 (B) IPC.

2. Earlier, the accused were granted bail by the Principal District Judge, Namakkal, where originally the trial was set in motion in S.C. No. 78/2016. A petition was filed u/s. 439 (2) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent/accused and after taking note of the hostile conduct of some of the accused in threatening the learned Sessions Judge during the course of hearing, the learned Sessions Judge has framed the following points for consideration:-

"i) Whether the respondents herein are dragging on the case and also preventing the court from framing the charges as against these respondents?

(ii) Whether any of the accused on bail committed similar offence or any heinous offence during the period of bail?

(iii) Whether any of the accused on bail has absconded and trial of the case gets delayed on that account?

(iv) Whether any of the accused on bail is terrorising the witness and committing acts of violence against the police/court?"

3. After examining the case in detail, the learned Sessions Judge finally cancelled the bail granted to the accused by order dated 7.6.18. Thereafter, the present bail applications have been moved on the ground that these accused have been suffering imprisonment since 7.6.18 and till date and as many as 79 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution. According to the accused, all the independent witnesses have been examined and remaining witnesses to be examined are only official witnesses and, therefore, there would not be any legal impediment for their release on bail. Therefore, they moved the trial court for grant of bail after suffering incarceration since 7.6.18 for a year.

4. Learned trial Judge, after taking note of various factors, has ultimately dismissed the bail applications and, hence the present appeals have been filed.

5. Mr. Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that due to the conduct of some of the accused before the trial court in one of the hearings, the bail granted to some of the accused have been cancelled, which includes these accused, who have nothing to do with the conduct of some of the accused. These accused, according to the learned senior counsel, did not hold out any threat or exhibited any hostile behaviour before the learned trial Judge. According to the learned senior counsel, A-12, who is one of the appellant herein, was only charged for escorting the girl and other appellants, who are A-13 to A-15 were only charged for harbouring the accused, who were charged with overt acts of murder. Therefore, it would be inexpedient to keep them in the custody for indefinite period till the conclusion of the trial, which may take considerable time, since 26 witnesses are yet to be examined on the side of the prosecution.

6. Learned senior counsel further submitted that the independent witnesses have been admittedly examined and the remaining witnesses to be examined are all official witnesses. Therefore, there would not be any scope for threatening any of the witnesses if these accused are let out on bail pending conclusion of the trial. According to the learned senior counsel, for harbouring the accused, offence falls u/s. 216 IPC and the sentence that is prescribed is only one year and, therefore, these accused are entitled to be enlarged on bail.

7. Per contra, Mr. A. Natarajan, learned State Public Prosecutor