These criminal petitions are preferred challenging the common order dated 26.11.2012 in Crl. MP Nos.2722 of 2012, 2723 of 2012, 2809 of 2012 and 2810 of 2012, on the file of the IV Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad whereunder and whereby two petitions filed by the State and two petitions filed by the de facto complainant for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioners herein, in Crime Nos.23 of 2012 and 26 of 2012 of Central Crime Station (CCS), Detective Department (DD), Hyderabad are allowed.

2. Crime No.23 of 2012 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad is registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC alleging that M/s. Sweety Builders Private Limited represented by the petitioners/accused entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with second respondent/DLF Universal Limited in the year 2006 and received eleven crores of rupees for development of certain property and gave certain properties to DLF as security by way of mortgage, and it was found that the property given as security was not owned and possessed by the accused and yet, with a view to cheat, they showed such property as security and obtained money from DLF and used it for purposes other than that was agreed in between the parties.

3. Crime No.26 of 2012 of CCS, DD, Hyderabad is registered for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 120B IPC alleging that M/s. Sweety Builders Private Limited and certain other companies, all belonged to the petitioners/accused, induced DLF Universal Limited with various projects and induced it to part with hundreds of crores of rupees, and the accused spent the said money in violation of the Memoranda of Understanding between the parties, and the accused diverted the funds to their personal accounts, and that it was a predetermined fraud.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri C. Padmanabha Reddy, appearing for the petitioners in all the criminal petitions, contended that in view of the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India for a period of three weeks, the petitioners were present in the trial Court and therefore they were said to be in the deemed custody of the Court; that imposing conditions by the Hon'ble Supreme Court giving liberty to police to interrogate the petitioners and that they should not leave the country would clearly go to show that the petitioners can neither be arrested by the police nor remanded by the Court till completion of three weeks; that the Magistrate acted as per the orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court protecting the petitioners against arrest, and the petitioners could not have been taken into custody as it violates the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court; that judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is binding on all Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India; that under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court got plenary powers to pass any order to do substantial justice to the parties, and therefore exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the present order has been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and considering that aspect, the learned Magistrate rightly granted bail, and if the Magistrate refused to take the application for bail, he would be liable for contempt of Court, but without assigning any reasons, the impugned common order has been passed by the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail; that cancelling the bail by the learned Sessions Judge is nothing but abuse of process of Court and required to be set aside by this Court so as to secure ends of justice.

5. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the petitioners have not surrendered before the trial Court as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and that a categorical finding has been recorded by the trial Court that they were not present physically in the Court and so, the question of invocation of Section 437 Cr.PC does not arise; that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India gave protection not to