1. Since the issues raised in the captioned applications are interconnected, those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

2. I may first consider Special Criminal Application Nos.4608 of 2014 and 4609/2014. These applications under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are at the instance of the original first informant calling in question the legality and validity of the order dated 17th October, 2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar on an application filed by the respondent no.3 (original accused), for surrender before the Sessions Court.

3. The facts giving rise to these applications may be summarized as under:-

3.1 The petitioner herein lodged a private complaint in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Gandhinagar against the accused persons named therein under the offence punishable under Sections 406, 420, 465, 471, 467, 120-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned JMFC thought fit to order police investigation under Sec. 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In view of the order passed by the learned JMFC, Gandhinagar under Sec. 156(3) of the Code, the Adalaj Police Station, Gandhinagar registered the First Information Report as M. Case No.1/2013 under the offence punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code afore noted.

3.2 It appears that the respondent no.3, original accused persons, apprehending arrest at the hands of the police, applied for the anticipatory bail in the Court of the Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar. The learned Sessions Judge, Gandhinagar allowed the anticipatory bail applications filed by the accused persons and ordered release on bail in the event of their arrest by the police subject to certain terms and conditions.

3.3 It appears that one of the terms and conditions imposed in the order of the anticipatory bail was that the accused persons shall present themselves before the Investigating Officer.

3.4 It appears from the materials on record that the terms and conditions on which the anticipatory bail was granted by the Sessions Court were not complied with and the accused persons absconded.

3.5 Since the accused persons failed to cooperate with the investigation and did not comply with the terms and conditions of the anticipatory bail order the petitioner herein in his capacity as the first informant filed petitions in this Court praying for the cancellation of the anticipatory bail order.

3.6 The learned Single Judge of this Court adjudicated the applications filed by the petitioner herein for cancellation of the anticipatory bail order adjudicated the same and vide order dated 17th September, 2014 allowed the applications cancelling the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court in favour of the accused persons i.e. respondent no.3 in the two applications herein.

3.7 Since the subject matter of debate is with regard to the correct interpretation of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, I deem it necessary to quote the two relevant paragraphs of the said order.

“64. In view of above facts and circumstances, Special Criminal Application nos.984 of 2014 and 2756 of 2014 and Criminal Misc. Application no.5027 of 2014 are allowed. Thereby, bail granted in favour of private respondent/s in such application/s are hereby quashed and set aside. Thereby these respondents are required to be surrendered before the Police within four weeks’, without fail and to comply with the respective order of bail in their favour, without fail, within seven days. Whereas, Criminal Misc. Application no.3992 of 2014 is dismissed only on the ground that private respondents therein are ladies. However, with specific direction that they must comply with the respective bail order within their favour, within seven days, without fail, Respondent/s in all above matters are at liberty to apply afresh for their bail immediately on their surrender and the trial Court has to decide such application within five work