ORDER :

1. These Special Leave Petitions arises out of the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati in Crl. M.C. 226 of 2013 in B.A. No. 654 of 2013 (D/o.), dated 16.07.2013, whereby and whereunder the High Court has cancelled the bail granted to the Petitioners herein by the High Court.

2. A succinct recapitulation of the facts in the instant case is: On the complaint of one Tofail Ahmed alleging kidnapping of his son, P.S. Case No. 181/2011 was registered Under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the Indian Penal Code") at the Badarpur Police Station at Karimganj, Assam, dated 22.11.2012. Sessions Case No. 75 of 2012 arising out of the aforesaid was registered Under Sections 365, 120B, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against two accused-Petitioners herein-Kamal Hussain and Mumin Uddin. Further, another Police Case No. 126 of 2012 was registered Under Section 365, 120B, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(a), (2) and (3) of the Arms Act for threatening to commit murder of the witnesses in the aforesaid Sessions Trial against the Petitioner accused persons herein and the corresponding Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 was committed. The accused-Petitioners were in judicial custody. While the aforesaid two accused Petitioners in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2012 were acquitted, the Trial Court had enlarged accused Petitioner-Abdul Basit on bail by order dated 24.01.2013.

3. The wife of the deceased preferred Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2012 before the High Court for the direction to investigating agencies in Police Case No. 126 of 2012 to investigate properly. The High Court took note of the fact that the Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 is at the stage of framing of charges and observed that depending upon the materials on record the Trial Court is at liberty to invoke Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") requiring further investigation by an independent agency, more particularly the CID, by its order dated 29.01.2013.

4. The Trial Court in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 directed further investigation by the CID, stayed the trial proceedings and rejected the bail application of accused-Petitioners herein by a common order dated 18.02.2013.

5. Against the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-Petitioners had approached the High Court with the limited prayer of grant of bail. The High Court being of the view that since direction of further investigation has been issued by the learned Sessions Judge, the charge sheet submitted earlier by the police had become infructuous and the accused-Appellants were entitled to seek relief Under Section 167(2), proviso (A)(1), by its order dated 12.03.2013 in Bail Application No. 593 of 2013 had granted bail to the three accused-applicants therein (the Petitioners before us). On the basis of the aforesaid order of the High Court, three other co-accused-Petitioners were released by order dated 20.03.2013 in Bail Application No. 654 of 2013. Subsequently, by order dated 20.03.2013 in Bail Application No. 664 of 2013, other three co-accused were enlarged on bail.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid three orders, the Respondent herein approached the High Court by way of Crl. M.C. 226 of 2013 in B.A. No. 654 of 2013 and sought for cancellation of the bail granted to all the accused-Petitioners herein on the grounds, inter alia, that the direction of learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 to the CID to conduct further investigation of the case Under Section 173(8) of the Code does not tantamount to re-investigation or fresh investigation of the case and hence, did not render the chargesheet submitted by the police in the aforesaid case infructuous and therefore, could not have entitled the Respondents to avail of default bail Under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code on the ground that chargesheet was not submitted within 90 days.

7. The High Court by a c