The power of the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. can be exercised in appropriate cases where there is a strong prima facie case, based on material available, that the accused is interfering with the course of justice by tampering with witnesses.

R.C. Lahoti, J.

1. This order shall also dispose of Criminal Revision No. 30/85. The two revisions have been preferred by the two accused against an order dated 30-12-84 passed in S. T. No. 134/84 whereby, in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C., the liberty of bail extended earlier to the accused applicants, has been ordered to be recalled. Criminal Revision No. 4/85 is by Arun Kumar Dixit and Criminal Revision No. 30/85 is by Suresh. I have heard the learned Counsel Sarvashri J.P. Gupta and P.N. Sharma, Advocates for the two applicants as also Shri R. C. Pandey, Govt. Advocate, for the State.

2. A little detailed statement as to factual back-drop appears not only apposite but a must. On 29-7-83, Virendrasingh, resident of Ramkala Nagar, Murar locality of the city of Gwalior, had a casual verbal exchange with one of the accused at about 4 p.m. At about 11 p. m. when Virendrasingh was sitting outside his house, Arun Dixit armed with a sword and Suresh armed with a chain, reached him. Without a word Arun Dixit dealt a single blow by sword on the head of Virendrasingh and Suresh dealt a blow by chain. Virendrasingh fell down unconscious. Arun Dixit dealt a second blow by the sword but on Shantidevi, wife of Virendrasingh, landing on her left hand. Within 15 minutes of the incident, F. I. R. was lodged at the nearby Police Station. Virendrasingh was rushed to the hospital only to be declared dead on account of sword injury on the head, which had caused syncope and haemorrhage. Shantidevi was found to have suffered a fracture of the humerus shaft. On completion of investigation, a challan was filed implicating the accused applicants under Ss. 302/324/34 I.P.C. On 14-12-83, accused Arun Kumar was produced before the Court, but accused Suresh could not be produced, as he was absconding. Proceedings under Section 299 Cr. P.C. were taken. However, he was apprehended later on and a supplementary charge-sheet was drawn up on 15-1-84 and filed in the Court. It is not disputed that both the accused-applicants were enlarged on bail by the Sessions Judge, Gwalior.

3. On the case being committed to the Court of Session, charges under Ss. 302, 325 and 302/325/34 I.P.C. were framed against the accused applicants. On 17-9-84, a calendar for trial was drawn up. The evidence was to commence on 19-12-84. On this day, the accused Arun Kumar Dixit was absent, though his counsel was present and accused Suresh was present with his counsel. Anandsingh and Shantidevi, respectively the son and widow of the victim, the most material eye-witnesses, were present to be examined. On behalf of Arun Dixit, an application was filed to the effect that he was suffering with pain in stomach and was not present therefor. The Court expressed an opinion that the application was a lame excuse for avoiding the trial and directed the hearing to be adjourned to the following day. On 20-12-84, the accused Arun Kumar continued to be absent by filing an application that he was admitted in Civil Hospital Morar on account of sickness. An affidavit by Jagdish Narayan, father of the accused, was also filed, without stating the nature of sickness. The trial Court expressed an opinion that the application and the affidavits were not sufficient to condone the default in appearance of accused Arun Dixit. Incidentally, it may be stated that the affidavit filed by Jagdish Narayan was not an affidavit in the eye of law because of defective verification wherein Jagdish Narayan had verified the contents of the affidavit both on 'personal knowledge' and also as 'believed to be true', without indicating how much of the contents of the affidavit were based on his personal knowledge and how much of it were believed to be true. An additional fact which prevailed with the trial Court was an affidavit filed by one Dinesh Singh, son of the deceased Virendrasingh, wherein he had stated on oath that the accused Arun Dixit was seen by him moving opposite the Court buildin