Palok Basu, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under Section 482, Cr.P.C. by Shyam Behari Tiwari. The prayer in this application is that the order of the Sessions Judge, Ballia, dated 31 -7 -1991 by quashed and the order of the Magistrate granting bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 134 of 1990 under Section 409 I.P.C., P.S. Reoti district Ballia be restored. The facts are that on 27 -4 -90 Umashankar Singh had lodged a first information report under Section 409. I.P.C. at police station Reoti, district Ballia alleging that the applicant Shyam Behari Tiwari being the principal of an institution known as Langroo Baba Inter College Badihan Lalan, district Ballia had embezzled the amount which was received by him as contribution to the G.P. Fund by the teachers and the employees.
(2.) BY an order dated 15 -5 -90 the Magistrate passed a detailed order granting bail to the applicant on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to his satisfaction. Uma Shankar Singh, the informant (Manager of the Institution) filed an application for cancellation bail before the Sessions Judge, Ballia. By an order dated 31 -7 -91 the said application was allowed and the applicant Shyam Behari Tiwari was taken into custody. While in custody in pursuance of the aforesaid order dated 31 -7 -1991 the present petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. has been moved. In this application a further prayer was that as an interim relief the applicant may be granted bail. While admitting this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for disposal this court by its order dated 8 -8 -1991 directed that applicant Shyam Behri Tiwari be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the C.J.M. Ballia. It is not disputed that even at the time of admission of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Sri Sudhakar Pandey learned counsel for the informant opposite party, was heard. It is also not disputed that in pursuance of order dated 8 -8 -1991 the applicant Shyam Behari Tiwari has been granted bail.
(3.) THE argument of Sri Sudhakar Panday, learned counsel for the opposite party informant in the present case is that the applicant had after having been taken into custody by virtue of the order dated 31 -7 -1991 filed an application for bail before the Sessions Judge which is pending disposal because the Session Judge has taken the view that in view of the cancellation order passed by him the original bail application moved before the Magistrate stood revised and that has to be first disposed of so as to entitle the Sessions Judge to dispose of the bail application moved before him. All this exercise is now completely academic. The fact remains that the applicant Shyam Behari Tiwari was wanted in a case under Section 409, I.P.C. that the allegations against him are very serious and may be that some different view could be possible at the time of hearing his prayer for bail in this court, and, the accused was in custody. Moreover, the bail prayer was granted by this court after hearing the counsel for the informant. This being the position, the order passed by this court on 8 -8 -1991 can very well be taken to be bail order on merits of the case. The technicality of moving bail application should not be so strictly adhered to that the bail order dated 8 -8 -1991 should not be treated as an order of bail granted to the applicant in the parent case. For the aforesaid reasons no further directions or orders are necessary in this petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. as the applicant has been finally granted bail in view of the interim order dated 8 -8 -1991 by this court. The trial court is directed to proceed with the hearing of the case as expeditiously as possible. The pendency of the bail application and other matters before the Magistrate or before the Sessions Judge had, therefore, become infructuous and those applications need not be detained there any more and are dismissed as such. With the aforesaid observations this application is finally disposed of.;