The cancellation of bail is permissible only if there are supervening circumstances that make it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial.

This is a petition under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail of Arun, opposite party No. 1.

2. 1 have heard Sri D. N. Wali, learned Counsel for the applicant, and Shri VB. Mishra and the learned AGA for the op posite parties.

3. An FIR was lodged against the accused-opposite party No. 1 Arun with the allegations that on 6-6- 1996 when the informants son Yudhvir was irrigating his fields from his tube-well, his younger son Sudhir was resting under a tree in the nearby, and the complainant was working in the sugarcane field, at about 10 a. m. the accused Arun out of eight years old enmity arrived on these spot and with intention to kill, shot his son Sudhir the deceased, dead. The complainant and his younger son arrived on the spot, the accused after extending threats ran away. On way to the hospital, the deceased breathed his last. The accused- applicant moved application before the Sessions Judge, Meerut there he did not press his petition. Consequent ly, his bail petition was rejected (vide An-nexure 8 ). Thereafter, the case was trans ferred to the court of the XII Additional Sessions Judge, Shri K. P. Mathur, who by his order dated llth March, 1997 (vide Annexure 11) has enlarged the accused opposite party.

4. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the murder is a day light murder. There are eye-witnesses of the occurrence, resultant fire-arm injuries have been found on the person of the deceased, it was not a fit case for bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge ought not have enlarged the accused on bail. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the accused-opposite party urged that after considering the respective contentions of the parties the learned Ad ditional Sessions Judge has admitted the accused opposite party to bail, and it was a fit case for bail.

5. The principles regarding the can cellation of bail are now well settled. In Aslam Babalal Desai v. State of Maharashtra, 1992 Cri. L. J. 3712 (SC), the Supreme Court after referring the earlier decisions of the court held that the grounds for cancellation of bail under Sec tion 437 (5) and 439 (2), Cr. P. C. are identi cal and the bail granted can be cancelled on the following grounds :-

" (i) where the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,

(ii) where he interferes with the course of investigation,

(iii) where he attempts to tamper with evidence of witnesses,

(iv) where he threatens witnesses or indul ges in similar activities, which would hamper smooth investigation,

(v) where there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country,

(vi) where he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming un available to the investigating agency, and

(vii) where he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground or becoming un available to the investigating agency, where at tempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. "

. 6. Earlier, in the case of Delhi Ad ministration v. Sanjay Gandhi, 1978 Cri. L. J. 952, the Supreme Court has held:-

"rejection of bail when bail is applied for is one thing, cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail appli cation in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail nece ssarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it wou ld be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial. The fact that prosecution witness have turned hostile cannot by itself justify the in ference that the accused has won them over. The objective fact that witnesses have turned hostile must be shown to bear a casual connect ion with the subjective involvement therein of the accused. Without such proof, a bail once granted cannot be cancelled on the off chance or on the supposition that witnesses h