- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and APP for the State.
(2.) PETITIONERS have prayed for quashing the order dated 30.7.2003, passed by the Sessions Judge Dhanad in Criminal Revision No. 212 of 2002, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has cancelled the bail granted by learned CJM. Petitioners are the Owner, Driver and khalasi respectively of the vehicle. A case was instituted against them under Sections 414 and 120 -B of IPC, alleging transportation of stolen diesel without any papers. Petitioner No. 3 (the khalasi), filed a bail petition before the learned CJM which was rejected on 24.9.2002. On 3.10.2002, he again filed a petition taking some further grounds. Certain documents were filed in order to show that the diesel was not stolen property. The learned CJM called for a report from the Investigating Officer (I.O.). After receipt of the said report, on being prima facie satisfied that the diesel was not a stolen property and that petitioner No. 3. Raju Yadav was merely a khalasi, the learned CJM granted him bail. Thereafter, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 surrendered and filed a petition for bail and they were also granted bail by CJM on the basis of the said report of the I.O., which was received by CJM in connection with the bail application of petitioner No. 3.
(3.) IT is curious that in such a case, a purported Criminal Revision was filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand for cancellation of bail of the petitioners. This was registered as Criminal Revision No. 212 of 2002. The said revision petition was af - fidavited by one Anirudh Kumar Sinha claiming himself to be working in the office of Assistant Public Prosecutor as Clerk - typist. It is not clear under what authority/ order of the State of Jharkhand, the said revision was filed.;