DHANPAL Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 17.5.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Budaun in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1997 cancelling the ball of the applicants. Perused the record of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9627 of 1996 and Criminal Misc. Ball Application No. 695 of 1997. The bail was cancelled by the learned Judge on the ground that bail application of Dhanpal was rejected by the High Court on 4.11.1996 in Criminal Misc. Ball Application No. 9627 of 1996 and the bail application of Godey was pending before the High Court In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 695 of 1997. The allegation was that suppressing those facts both the applicants filed bail application before the lower court and the same was allowed.

(2.) SRI G. R. S. Pal appearing for the revisionists has submitted that the applicant did not engage any counsel to move the bail application and hence they are not at fault and they had no other motive in obtaining the bail from the lower court.

(3.) IN Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1977 SC 2185, it has been held that an order which does not decide any of the matter in dispute or substantially decide a vital issue in the case against the accused touching the merit of the case or rights of the parties will be an INterlocutory order.