HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.634 of 2011 ORDER:- This application has been filed by the de facto complainant in Crime No.213 of 2009 of Penuganchiprolu P.S., registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302, 120(B) read with Section 149 I.P.C. seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents 1 to 3 herein. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-de facto complainant and the learned senior counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3/A.1 to A.3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents 1 to 3 as per orders in Crl.P.No.13103 of 2010, failed to consider the statements of the eye witnesses given to the investigating officer and simply relied on 164 Cr.P.C Statements of two witnesses and had this Court considered the statement of all the eye witnesses recorded during investigation, anticipatory bail application ought not to have been allowed and moreso in view of the attempts made by the respondents 1 to 3 earlier to secure anticipatory bail proved to be futile. The learned counsel refers the orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.10117 of 2009 dated 09-12-2009, Crl.P.No.8930 of 2010 dated 28-09-2010 and Crl.P.No.2665 of 2010 dated 11-06-2010. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that this Court has taken into consideration the 164 Cr.P.C. statements of the witnesses while granting anticipatory bail and therefore the present application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail is liable to be dismissed. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Crl.P.N.13103 of 2001, the respondents 1 to 3 surrendered themselves before the Station House Officer, Penuganchiprolu P.S., and executed bonds to the satisfaction of the S.H.O. In response, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that respondents 1 to 3 are powerful persons and they have already managed three witnesses to resile from their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and there is every likelihood of their pressurising the witnesses whose statements have been recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The issue that calls for adjudication is whether the petitioner has made any valid ground for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to respondents 1 to 3 herein. In Mehboob Dawood Shaik Vs State of Maharashtra (2004) 2 S.C.C 362, the Supreme Court held that rejection of bail stands on one footing but cancellation of bail is a harsh order because it takes away the liberty of an individual granted and is not lightly resorted to. When a person to whom bail has been granted either tries to interfere with the course of justice or attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses or threatens witness or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation or trial, bail granted can be cancelled. I have gone through the order dated 05-01-2011 in Crl.P.No.13103 of 2010. The ground on which anticipatory bail came to be granted to the respondents 1 to 3 is that their participation has not been spoken out by the witnesses whose statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C came to be recorded by the Magistrate. The statements recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C has been placed on record. They did not speak the presence of the respondents herein at the time of incident. Keeping this fact in view, anticipatory bail came to be granted to the respondents 1 to 3. I do not see any valid ground to cancel the anticipatory bail granted to the petitioner as per orders in Crl.P.No.13103 of 2010. Since it is stated by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents 1 to 3 are influenced persons and there is likelihood of their winning over the witnesses whose statements have been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., I deem it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to mark their appearance before the D.S.P., C.B.C.I.D., Guntur once in a week on every Saturday between 10.00 a.m, and 05.00 p.m. Accordingly, the order passed in Criminal Petition No.13103 of 2010 is hereby modified. The Criminal Petition is disposed of. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY 4th March, 2011 Vjl