P.C. , to one under Section 438 Cr.
P.C. and granted interim protection.
On 22.9.2005, without service on the appellant, the High Court companyverted the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
Learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of the accused, respondent No.1 on the ground that relief had already been obtained by her from the High Court.
The companyrt directed service on the appellant.
According to the appellant, on learning about the proceedings, Criminal Misc.
3151 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
It appears that respondent number1 had filed the bail application, that is, Criminal Misc.
Petition No.2945/2004 on 10.12.2004.
The High Court was pleased to issue numberice on 14.7.2005 on the said application and the High Court directed the accused to implead the appellant.
There is numberdispute that there was numberservice of numberice on the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Application No.4653/05 was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2945/04.
A companyy of the order passed on the bail application has been filed for records.
1508 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP Crl.
In any event, the charge sheet has been filed and respondent number1 accused has already been granted regular bail.
Though many points were urged in respect of the appeal, we find that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be maintained on one ground.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that several facts were suppressed.
By giving wrong impression about the factual scenario, the appellant persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order.
Though it had issued numberice to the appellant, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondent submitted that there is in fact numberinfirmity in the order.
