An order granting bail is not an interlocutory order and is, therefore, subject to revision.

A S. Nehra, J. - This revision petition is directed against the order dated 18th September, 1991, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari by which the order dated 21-6-1991 passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, H.C.S., Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhri were set aside.

2. The facts of the case are that Mangal Sain Malik, brother of the petitioner lodged FIR No. (sic) on 26-5-1991 at Police Station, Jagadhari under Section 420/467/471 and 120-B Indian Penal Code on the allegations which read as under :-

"That I am resident of House No. 612 Sant Pura Model Town, Yamunanagar, vide registered deed dated 20-6-1986, one house bearing No. C/13-97 measuring 30 x. 60 was purchased by me and my brother Bodh Raj from one Brij Lal s/o Karam Chand for sale consideration of Rs 30,000/-. Thereafter on 18.7.1989 on arbitration argument was entered into amongst the three brothers i.e. I, Roshan Lal and Bodh Raj and Virender Malik, my son and Rakesh Malik s/o Bodh Raj. Agreement was reduced to writing and we all signed the same and we entered into possession of respective shares as owners. According to the agreement House No. C/13-977 which I alongwith my brother Bodh Raj had purchased vide Registered Sale deed dated 26-6-1986 for Rs. 30,000/- fell to my share and I am in possession of the same and an entry in municipal record was accordingly made on 27-3-1991, my brother Bodh Raj in my absence for cheating got a sale deed executed fraudulently and dishonestly by concealing true facts have committed offence under above said sections."

3. Petitioner filed an application under Section 438 Cr P. C. for granting anticipatory bail in this case which was rejected by Sh. B. R. Vohra, Additional Sessions Judge, Yamunanagar at Jagadhari on 18th June, 1991. Thereafter the petitioner on 21st June, 1991 surrendered before the Duty Magistrate, Sh. Sanjeev Jindal. The request of the police for remand was declined by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari, and the petitioner was granted bail on the same day when the petitioner surrendered in his Court. The order passed by Sh. Sanjeev Jindal, Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Jagadhari is as under :-

"The police has filed the application for police remand. Heard on the police remand, as well as on the application for bail filed on behalf of the accused.

The learned APP for the State has argued that police remand of the accused is very necessary as the police has to recover the Original/Registry, which is stated to have been forged by the accused Bodh Raj. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the accused has argued that the present application for police remand has been filed by the prosecution in connivance with the complainant just to humiliate the accused as the alleged registry has already been recovered by the Police. I find merit in this contention of the learned counsel for the accused in view of certified copy of police remand with respect to the investigation of the present case placed on file by the learned counsel for the accused. The perusal of aforesaid certified copy clearly shows that on 17-6-1991 one Netra Parkash, who had been earlier acting as an arbitrator between the complainant and the accused with respect to their pending disputes, had gone to the police station and had presented the registry in question to the police which is now sought to be recovered from the accused by the police. Learned APP for the state still argued that the registry which was presented to the police was only the photocopy of the original and that the police in fact had to recover the original registry from the accused I do not find any merit in those contention of learned APP for the State, because the certified copy of police proceedings, placed on record by the learned counsel for the accused, clearly shows that the police has not mentioned that the registry presented by the said Netra Parkash was only the photostat copy and that the same was not original one