ORDER :

This criminal original petition has been filed to cancel the bail granted to the respondents herein by an order dated 18.03.2020 passed in Crl.M.P.No.6299 of 2020 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.

2. The respondents herein were arrested on 11.03.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 336, 363, 332, 307 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, in Crime No.138 of 2020. The respondents filed a bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No.6299 of 2020. The Principal Sessions Judge, by an order dated 18.03.2020, granted bail to the respondents on certain conditions. Challenging the same, the petitioner herein has filed the present petition seeking to cancel the bail granted to the respondents/accused.

3. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the petitioner submits that many of the material facts, which were required for deciding whether the respondents herein could be enlarged on bail were not placed brought to the notice of the court below when the matter of bail for the respondents herein was considered. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the antecedents of the respondents herein was not taken into consideration by the trial court while granting bail. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the trial court has granted bail to the accused merely on account of the injuries alleged to have been suffered by them, but has not taken into consideration the injuries sustained by the police personnel and also the act of the accused in damaging the vehicle of the police authorities. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the 1st respondent/A-1 is a notorious criminal and involved in 18 cases including one bomb blast case and one TADA case and he was in prison for more than 21 years. She further submitted that A2 is the son of A1 and A3 to A5 are henchmen and the offences are heinous in nature and if they are let out on bail, there is every likelihood of causing danger to the life of the defacto complainant in Crime No.138 of 2020. She further submitted that investigation is still pending and the statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. are yet to be recorded from the defacto complainant and the victim.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that A1 suffered incarceration for more than 21 years in a case in which he stood acquitted and that there are no pending cases against A-1. It is further submitted that there are no pointed allegations against A-2 to A-5 and no materials have been placed by the petitioner herein to show that they had hampered the investigation in any manner.

5. This Court gave its anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the materials available on record.

6. Before proceeding to find out whether the bail granted to the accused is justified or not, it would be useful to have a bird's eye view of the proposition of law on the aspect of interference by the appellate court with the bail already granted to the accused.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Mahesh (2021 SCC OnLine SC 308), had occasion to consider the question relating to the power of the appellate court to interfere with the order of bail granted by the lower court and dissecting on the various precedents on this issue, held as under :-

“16. It is well settled that though the power to grant bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C is discretionary, such discretion has to be exercised judiciously, as held by this Court in Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh reported in (2002) 3 SCC 598. Speaking for the Court, Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J. said:—

“3. Grant of bail though being a discretionary order — but, however, calls for exercise of such a discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course. Order for bail bereft of any cogent reason cannot be sustai