This revision petition is directed against an order passed by the learned Sessions Judge under Sec.439(2) of the Cr.P.C. canceling the bail granted to the petitioners 1 to 9 herein. It will be advantageous to refer to the sequence of events – twists and turns that have taken place in this case which led to the passing of the impugned order.

2. An incident is alleged to have taken place on 24/3/2002 at 2.30 a.m. Bereft of unnecessary details, the crux of the alleged incident is that there was an attempt to widen a pathway which already exists. Fence poles planted on either side of the way were allegedly removed. The de facto complainant was allegedly assaulted and intimidated. Obscenities were showered on him. On his complaint, a crime was registered on 24/3/2002. That crime was registered under Secs.323, 506(ii), 294(b) read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Six named accused persons (petitioners 1 to 6 herein) and some others (not named) were allegedly responsible for the crime. After investigation, final report was filed raising allegation against petitioners 1 to 6 under Secs.323, 294(b) and 506(ii) read with Sec.34 of the IPC. Cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and C.C.No.981/02 was registered. Petitioners 1 to 6 appeared before the learned Magistrate and they were granted bail under Sec.436 of the IPC on 18/1/2003. The de facto complainant was aggrieved and dissatisfied with the investigation conducted. He approached the Director General of Police for further investigation. Further investigation was ordered and further investigation was conducted under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. The case was kept pending before the learned Magistrate.

3 Thereupon, in the course of further investigation, the police arrayed petitioners 7 to 9 also as accused and made a further allegation that the offence under Sec.379 of the IPC was also committed by the accused persons. After further investigation, a further final report under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C. was filed and in that further final report, accused 7 to 9 were arrayed as additional accused and allegations under Secs.143,144,147,148,149,323,294(b), 506(ii) and 379 of the IPC were raised.

4. Petitioners 7 to 9 were arrested by the police and produced before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate enlarged them on bail under Sec.437 of the Cr.P.C.

5. The de facto complainant’s grievance remained unsatisfied by the further investigation conducted also. He came to this Court with W.P.(c).No.10509/05 alleging that the investigation was not conducted properly. It is submitted that further investigation was ordered by the superior officials of the police and such further investigation is now continuing. A Deputy Superintendent of Police is conducting such further investigation now.

6. The offence under Sec.379 of the IPC was included, in the further report filed under Sec.173(8) of the Cr.P.C., on the allegation that the fence poles which were uprooted from the sides of the pathway which was sought to be widened and which were available at a point away from the scence of the crime on the date of the occurrence had subsequently been stealthily removed. The Deputy Superintendent of Police conducting the investigation filed a petitioner before the learned Magistrate praying that in the changed circumstances, bail granted to petitioners 1 to 9 may be cancelled and he may be permitted to re-arrest them. That petition was dismissed by the learned Magistrate.

7. The prosecution filed a revisions petition before the learned Sessions Judge against that order. While that revision petition was pending, the de facto complainant approached this Court. This Court in the very same W.P.(c).No.10509/05 issued a direction to the learned Sessions Judge to consider the matter as one under Sec.439(2) of the Cr.P.C. and pass appropriate orders. The de facto complainant also appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and he was heard. It is thereafter that the impugned order has been passed by the