(1.) THE application under Section 439 (2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the order dated 17. 10. 2007 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in pursuance to the order dated 16. 10. 2007 passed by the learned Vacation Judge in connection with Criminal Misc. Case no. 898 of 2007 whereby and whereunder the learned Vacation Judge allowed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal procedure in favour of Opposite Party No. 2.

(2.) PETITIONER has filed this application for cancellation of the said bail granted in favour of opposite party No. 2. Petitioner herein is the wife of opposite party No. 2 and she filed petition of complaint before the Court of learned chief Judicial Magistrate, Purba Midnapore on which direction was passed for investigation by police under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case was registered for commission of offence punishable under Section 498a/323/406 of the Indian Penal Code against three persons including the opposite party No. 2.

(3.) OPPOSITE party herein along with her mother Smt. Rama Das moved an application before the learned Sessions Judge, Purba Midnapore under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 770 of 2007.

(4.) THE application for anticipatory bail was finally disposed of by learned Sessions Judge by order dated 7. 9. 2007 whereby the learned Sessions judge granted anticipatory bail in favour of the mother of the opposite party herein but refused the prayer for anticipatory bail so far as opposite party is concerned, after hearing the submission advanced by learned Advocates including the learned Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respective parties.

(5.) THE relevant portion of the order of the learned Session Judge is set out below : "considering the facts and circumstances of the case and materials on c. D. and other materials on record, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the mother-in-law of the defacto complt. , Smt. Rama Das, is considered and allowed ; but such prayer for the husband of the de facto complainant, namely, Asish Das, is rejected. "

(6.) A perusal of the said order dated 7. 9. 2007 will show that the application for anticipatory bail was disposed of after contested hearing and the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite party while moving the application for anticipatory bail submitted on behalf of both the petitioners who filed the application for anticipatory bail. It is also evident from the aforesaid order that learned Public Prosecutor raised objection mainly against the husband (opposite party herein) on the ground that there are sufficient materials against the husband showing his involvement with the alleged offence punishable under Section 498a/406 of the Indian Penal Code. So the rejection on the face of the aforesaid order, appears to have been passed after contesting hearing and the learned Sessions Judge on due consideration of the materials available in the C. D. and also after hearing the submission of learned Advocates for the respective parties passed the order, granting anticipatory bail to mother of the opposite party but rejected the application, so far as the Opposite Party herein is concerned.

(7.) IT further appears that on 11. 9. 2007 that is some days after the disposal of the application under Section 438 of the code of Criminal Procedure, an application was presented on behalf of the opposite party whereby it was submitted before the learned Court by the learned lawyer of the opposite party that during the course of hearing in the application for anticipatory bail, he submitted before the learned Court for not pressing the prayer for bail of accused petitioner No. 1 Ashis Das but in the order dated 7. 9. 2007 instead of recording "rejected as not being pressed", the application was rejected. It was prayed that in the order the words "as not being pressed" be in