1. Petitioner herein has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 498 Cr.PC for admission to bail in FIR No. 52/2018, Police Station Pantha-Chowk, Srinagar, while putting forth that the petitioner herein-accused was arrested on 29.06.2018 without any justification or cause and thereafter was falsely implicated in the case for commission of offences under Sections 363, 506, 376 Ranbir Penal code. The petitioner had applied for bail before learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, however, the said court rejected the bail vide order dated 09.10.2018.

2. The petitioner had annexed with the petition copies of a) FIR No. 52/2018, P/s Pantha chowk, Srinagar, b) statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 161/164-A Cr.PC, c) medical examination reports and, d) final report(challan), etc.

3. While the B.A.No. 158/2018 was being heard, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner herein had filed another petition(B.A.No.24/2019) for grant of same relief with an additional prayer for setting aside the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by learned trial court which had rejected the bail application.

1. Mr. Wajid, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Bail Application No.158/2018 submitted that there is no allegation levelled against the petitioner for alleged rape against the prosecutrix and so the learned trial court which had rejected the bail application was not right in doing so. It is also his submission that the allegations levelled against the petitioner are improbable and from the allegations which have been put-forth by the Investigating agency there was no scope for charging the petitioner-accused with the commission of offence under Section 376 Cr.PC and consequent dismissal of the bail application by the court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar, on the analogy that Section 497-C Cr.PC creates bar for grant of same, was unwarranted. He has also made reference of the order of bail passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st class, Judge Small Causes, Srinagar on 23.07.2018 in the same FIR at the time when the allegations were restricted to the commission of offences under Sections 363, 506 Ranbir Penal code. Furthermore, according to him, the statement of prosecutrix is highly improbable and it cannot be believed that the alleged prosecutrix can be taken by the accused-petitioner herein to such a distant place in the manner in which the first informant and alleged prosecutrix refers in their statements.

4. Mr. Wani, learned counsel for the petitioner in B.A.No. 24/2019, while being asked as to how second petition was moved, submitted that since the prayer had been made for setting aside the order, so filing of the petition is to be appreciated in that background. He has also submitted that there was no material available with the trial court to opine that the petitioner herein having committed offence under Section 376 Cr.PC and so required to be set aside.

5. Mr. Javaid Iqbal, learned Sr.AAG has questioned the legality of filing two petitions on the same subject and even not making a murmur in the second petition about filing of first petition. It is his submission that since the order passed by the learned trial court rejecting the application was interlocutory and so the revision would not lie against the said order. In this background, he has taken reliance on the judgment reported in 2012(1) JKJ 65 (HC) titled Ghulam Mohi ud din Bhat Vs. State and Ors. The Court in the said judgment has observed as:-

“The Supreme Court did not repel or reject the argument that the order granting bail was an “interlocutory order” not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. The case law relief upon by Mr. Lone, thus, extends support to the stand taken by Mr.Shah that the order granting or refusing bail is an “interlocutory order” and revision is not maintainable being expressly barred by Section 435(4-a) of the Code. However, this does not end the matter inasmuch as th