( 1 ) THE facts necessary for disposal of the three Criminal Revision Applications and special Criminal Application No. 839 of 2006 are that the original complainant, chiragbhai son of Rambhai Patel reported to the Police Station, Sector-7, Gandhinagar in relation to the offences punishable under sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 471, all read with Sections 34, 109, 114 and 120b of the indian Penal Code, 1860 and such report, being C. R. No. 1-147 of 2004, was registered at the police station. After registration of the criminal case, the police went into investigation and after collecting the material necessary for framing the charges, filed charge-sheet before the competent Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognisance in the matter and registered criminal Case No. 6867 of 2004. The accused persons were summoned and thereafter, they were taken into custody. The accused persons made various applications for their release on bail, but, the applications came to be dismissed on various dates on the ground that the accused persons had played a fraud, cheated the original complainant, deprived him of his valuable property and had pocketed money under the name and garb of execution of the sale deed.

( 2 ) IT is to be noted that certain agricultural lands belonging to the accused persons and some other allottees were sold in favour of the intermediary purchasers, who in their turn agreed to sell the property to Chiragbhai Patel. It appears that after some time, because of some development, the said sale deeds executed by the accused in favour of the intermediary purchasers were revoked and thereafter, the applications were made for correction of the revenue records. The complainant, chiragbhai Patel, in fact, had paid money to the intermediary purchaser, namely, shaileshbhai Joshi, who ultimately had to face number of problems. After the bail applications were rejected, the learned trial court framed the charges and proceeded with the trial. The trial of the case started on 6th June, 2005 by examining Chiragbhai as prosecution Witness No. 1. It appears from the records that on number of occasions, number of witnesses were examined, but, within a period of sixty days, the trial could not be concluded, therefore, the accused persons made applications under Section 437 (6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("the Code" for short) with a submission that in view of the mandatory provisions contained in sub-section (6) of section 437 of the Code, they be released on bail.

( 3 ) THE learned trial Court, by its order dated 26th December, 2005, directed release of the applicants on bail. The applicants were, accordingly, released.

( 4 ) THE order directing release of the applicants on bail was challenged before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, gandhinagar in Criminal Revision application No. 10 of 2006. The said application came to be dismissed by the then learned Principal Sessions Judge, holding, inter alia, that the Criminal revision Application was not maintainable, but, however the State or the original complainant were entitled to make an application under Section 439 (2) of the code. While disposing of the Criminal revision Application as not maintainable, the learned Principal Sessions Judge made various observations on the merits of the matter. Even while dismissing the Criminal revision Application, the learned Principal sessions Judge also directed transfer of criminal Case No. 6867 of 2004 to some other Court. Taking a clue from the order dated 13th April, 2006 passed in Criminal revision Application No. 10 of 2006, the complainant, in view of the liberty reserved in his favour, filed Criminal Miscellaneous application No. 391 of 2006 in the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. It is to be noted that by that time, the learned principal Sessions Judge, who had passed the earlier order, was transferred and a new incumbent had taken charge of the Office. The learned Sessions Court, in Criminal miscellane