IMPORTANT POINT
The orders made on the application for anticipatory bail or bail are neither judgment nor final order as they are merely interlocutory

orders.

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain. J. - By this petition (Cr. M 3245/95) under Section 482/483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short "Cr. P.C.") read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners/applicants inter alia prayed for quashing of orders dated 9th June, 1995 and 8th August, 1995 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi.

2. This petition came up for hearing before my learned brother AK Srivastava, J., who listed this matter for appropriate orders before Hon'ble the Chief Justice to be listed before me as the Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 820/95 filed under Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. was disposed of by me vide order dated 8th May, 1995, that is how this petition (Crl. M 3245/95) was listed before me.

3. Mr. RD. Mehra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has contended that after passing of the order dated 8th May, 1995 by this Court, orders passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate dated 9th June, 1995 and 8th August, 1995 could not have been passed. By impugned order dated 8th August, 1995, Metropolitan Magistrate came to the conclusion that there existed no bail order in view of the revocation of the bail order by the Division Bench of this Court dated 13th March, 1995 and no bail orders were operating in favour of the accused persons. Mr. Mehra has contended that this Court vide its order dated 8th May, 1995 has detailed the factual position, which inter alia incorporated that the petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., which was listed as Criminal Writ No. 288/94. On 19th April, 1994 the Division Bench of this Court stayed the arrest of the petitioners and thereafter on 13th March, 1995 interim order passed by the Division Bench was vacated. However, Division Bench on 17th February, 1995, granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner and it was further ordered by the Division Bench that in the event of their arrest, they shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bonds in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer and subject to condition that the petitioners join the investigation as and when called upon to do so. This order was recalled by the Division Bench on 13th March, 1995 and thereafter the petitioners withdrew the petition.

4. From the order passed by this Court on 8th May, 1995, Mr. Mehra has contended that the Metropolitan Magistrate has committed a grave irregularity, Magistrate formed ah opinion without hearing the petitioners and not taking into consideration High Court order dated 8th May, 1995. Metropolitan Magistrate vide impugned order dated 9th June, 1995 held that petitioners were not on bail, said finding was manifestly perverse.

5. Thereafter it seems that another application was moved by the petitioner herein before the Metropolitan Magistrate praying that the petitioners were on bail pursuant to the orders of anticipatory bail passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi and their bail having not been cancelled, a valuable right had accrued in their favour and, therefore, they were on bail. Mr. Mehra has further contended that vide order, dated 8th May, 1995 High Court has taken the totality of the facts into consideration and the fact that the orders of the Division Bench granting bail were executed, bail bonds were filed, same were also attached with the charge-sheet, therefore, the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate holding that no bail order exists, has to be set aside.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, Mr. Parikh, has contended that the present application is not maintainable as the main petition filed by the petitioners under Section 435 of the Cr. P.C. was finally disposed of on 8th May, 1995 and this Court cannot modify, review or alter its order dated 8th May, 1995. Another argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 is that even if an error