THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Criminal Petition No.10092 of 2010 ORDER:- This is an application filed by the de-facto complainant seeking cancellation of the bail to the respondents No.1 to 3 granted by the II- Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crime No.98 of 2010 of Ponnur Rural P.S., registered for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. Respondents No.1 to 3 herein are A.1 to A.3 in Crime No.98 of 2010 of Ponnur Rural P.S., registered for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 of I.P.C. The accusation made against the respondents No.1 to 3 is that they dealt with blows on Papana Srinivasa Rao with sticks due to some boundary disputes and thereby caused serious injuries to him, for which he succumbed while he was being shifted to Guntur Government Hospital for better treatment. Respondents No.1 to 3 came to be arrested on 5-8-2010. They moved Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2010 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail. The learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor, proceeded to grant bail to A.1 to A.3 on certain conditions by an order dated 24-9-2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “It is an admitted fact that this incident took placed on 1-8-2010 and the matter is reported to the police on 2-8- 2010 and admittedly, the accused and the deceased are neighbouring landowners and an incident took place in the fields of the accused and Papana Srinivasa Rao in connection with a dispute of boundary……..” Hence, this application by the de-facto complainant for cancellation of bail granted to respondents No.1 to 3 herein. Heard learned Counsel representing the petitioner – de-facto complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for 4th respondent – State and learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 – accused. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that bail has been granted by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, on the premise that the attack is not premeditated but the report submitted by the eye witnesses is otherwise and therefore the bail granted to respondents No.1 to 3 is liable to be cancelled. A further submission has been made that the deceased received ‘22’ injuries and that itself indicates that the attack on the deceased is premeditated. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 supported the order passed by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur, in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2010. I have gone through the report presented by Papana Venkateswara Rao who claims to be the eyewitness to the incident. The incident occurred due to some boundary disputes. The report indicates that the deceased sustained only one bleeding injury. Other injuries are dumb injuries. The respondents No.1 to 3 came to be arrested on 5-8-2010 and their bail application came to be considered by the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur on 24- 9-2010. By the date of consideration of their bail application, most of the material witnesses were examined. Rejecting of bail stands on one footing, but cancellation of bail is a harsh remedy because it takes away the liberty of the individual granted and is not lightly resorted to. It is not the case of the prosecution or the petitioner – de-facto complainant that the respondents No.1 to 3 after securing bail, misutilized their liberty. Such is the situation, I find that the petitioner failed to make out any valid ground for cancellation of bail granted to them in Crl.M.P.No.1386 of 2010 on the file of the II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is dismissed. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 30th November, 2010 NOTE:- Issue copy in one week (B/o.smr)