Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Leave granted.
2. 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. Though it had issued notice to the appellant, the matter was disposed of without hearing the appellant. It appears that Respondent 1 had filed the bail application, that is, Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2945 of 2004 on 10-12-2004. The Court directed service on the appellant. There is no dispute that there was no service of notice on the appellant. According to the appellant, on learning about the proceedings, Criminal Misc. Application No. 4653 of 2005 was filed in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 2945 of 2004. The High Court was pleased to issue notice on 14-7-2005 on the said application and the High Court directed the accused to implead the appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application of Respondent 1-accused on the ground that relief had already been obtained by her from the High Court. On 22-9-2005, without service on the appellant, the High Court converted the application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short “CrPC”), to one under Section 438 CrPC and granted interim protection.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that several facts were suppressed. By giving wrong impression about the factual scenario, the appellant (sic Respondent) persuaded the High Court to pass the impugned order. In response, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there is in fact no infirmity in the order. In any event, the charge-sheet has been filed and Respondent 1-accused has already been granted regular bail. A copy of the order passed on the bail application has been filed for records.
4. It is to be noted that the practice of converting applications filed under Section 482 CrPC to one for bail in terms of Section 438 or 439 CrPC has not been approved by this Court. Additionally, direction was given for issuance of notice and service on the appellant which has not been done by Respondent 1-accused. The fact that the charge-sheet has been filed or bail has been granted is really of no consequence because of the fact that relief in the regular bail application appears to have been granted to Respondent 1 in view of the interim protection given by the High Court to the accused by the impugned order.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. To avoid unnecessary delay let the parties appear without further notice on 2-11-2007, before the learned Single Judge. If any party does not appear on that day, needless to say the learned Single Judge shall deal with the matter in accordance with law. The learned Chief Justice of the High Court is requested to direct listing of the matter before the learned Single Judge according to the roster.
6. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.