Ramesh Ranganathan, J.

1. Both these appeals are preferred, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by the State of Telangana represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department and the Station House Officer, KPHB Police Station, Cyberabad against the interlocutory orders of bail granted by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.36232 & 36343 of 2016 dated 04.11.2016. Parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as they are arrayed in the Writ Petitions.

2. W.P. Nos.36232 and 36343 of 2016 were filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash F.I.R.Nos.166 of 2016 dated 27.02.2016 and F.I.R.No.644 of 2016 dated 11.08.2016 respectively, on the file of the Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, on the ground that they were illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also sought a declaration that their business activities did not violate any provisions of the Indian Penal Code as mentioned in the advertisement issued by the investigating authority. Alternatively, they sought permission of this Court to compound the offences in so far as the complaint and the cited witnesses were concerned, and to direct the respondents therein (appellants herein) to grant them a reasonable time of two weeks before taking coercive steps as regards the allegations made in connection with the business carried on by QNET/Vihaan. A further alternative prayer was sought that, all the complaints pending on the file of the CCS Police Station, Hyderabad, Krishna Lanka Police Station, Vijayawada, Kukatpally Police Station, Cyberabad, Madannapet Police Station, Hyderabad, Nadigudem Police Station, Nalgonda District and KPHB Colony Police Station, Hyderabad, be clubbed together. By the interim orders passed earlier on 27.10.2016, the Learned Single Judge had granted stay of all further proceedings.

3. On the ground that the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate at Kukatpally, Cyberabad had refused to entertain their applications for grant of bail in view of the interim stay granted by this Court on 27.10.2016, resulting in their detention in prison, the petitioners sought bail in W.P. Nos.36232 and 36343 of 2016. While the learned Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the appellants, would submit that the order dated 04.11.2016 came to be passed on an oral request made on behalf of the petitioners, even without an application being filed in this regard, Sri D.V. Seetharama Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, would submit that, while separate applications were filed in this regard, there appeared to be a typographical error in the orders under appeal, and, instead of referring to the W.P.M.Ps, the orders under appeal appear to have been passed in the Writ Petitions.

4. Be that as it may the learned Single Judge, in the orders under appeal, was of the opinion that the stay granted earlier, preventing the authorities concerned from proceeding with the investigation or any further proceedings in connnection with the said crimes, did not mean that it precluded the Magistrate from releasing the accused; and the said order (dated 27.10.2016) was granted only to protect the petitioners’ rights. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, directed the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate to release the petitioners in Crime Nos.166 and 644 of 2016 if any application was made for bail. The Magistrate was directed to obtain personal bonds for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety from each of the accused for their release, and also to impose the condition that they should appear before the police concerned daily between 10:00 am and 5:00 pm. The learned Judge clarified that, if there was any remand by the Mumbai Police and if there was any requirement by the Court in Mumbai, the stay order granted earlier would not stand in the way of the Magistrate to transit the petitioners for further remand.

5. Subsequently, by order in W.P.M.P. No.47152 of 2016 in W.P. No.36232 of 2016 and in W