JUDGMENT 1. - This is an application under section 482, Cr.P.C. filed by the complainant Babulal. A double murder took place of Smt. Kasturi wife of Babulal and Sunita grand-daughter of Babulal. The murder was also accompanied by theft of various ornaments etc. 2. Three accused persons including Tribhuwan and Nathu were arrested and prosecuted. They have been convicted for the offence u/s 380, I.P.C., but acquitted for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. 3. So far as their conviction u/s 380, I.P.C. is concerned, Tribhuwan and Nathu filed an appeal No. 40/81. In this appeal, bail application No. 134/81 was filed. This bail application was put up before the Court on 18-3-81, and an order was passed for calling of the record. After the record was received, the application was listed on 13-5-81. On this date, an order was passed granting bail by this Court, which reads as under; "In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the accused-petitioners should be granted bail. I would accordingly allow this application and direct that the petitioners shall be released on bail, if they severally execute bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 6,000/- with two sureties in the amount of Rs. 3000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial court for their appearance before this Court on July 6, 1981, and as and when they are advised to do so." 4. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that when the case was heard by one of the Judges of this Court,the names of the complainant counsel were not shown in the cause list, and, therefore, he was deprived of the opportunity to press his case. It was then argued that it was a case of brutal double murder and since the appeal has also been admitted against acquittal and non-bailable warrant has been issued, the accused should be kept behind the bars in this appeal also. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused has opposed the application. It was argued that the complainant has no legal right to be heard in a criminal case, and the State was duly represented before this Court when the bail was granted. 5. Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the accused has opposed the application. It was argued that the complainant has no legal right to be heard in a criminal case, and the State was duly represented before this Court when the bail was granted. It was also pointed out that since the question of bail would again come up before a Division Bench in the D.B. Appeal against acquittal, it would be open to the Division Bench to consider whether to grant bail or not, and while doing so all the facts and circumstances of the case would be taken in view and can be brought to the notice of the Division Bench. 6. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Normally, this case would have been listed before the same Bench, which granted the bail, but when it was listed before the same Bench on 16-7-81, an order was passed that this should be listed before a Single Bench according to the Roster. In view of this, I have got no option but to hear and decide this matter, which normally should have been done by the same Bench. 7. I have heard Mr. Jain and Mr. Sharma at length regarding the merits of the bail application on the assumption that the case can be re-heard after recalling the earlier order. 8. The intervening circumstances of pendency of an appeal before Division Bench against acquittal from this very judgment and the issue of non-bailable warrant have created a situation where it would be improper for me to pass any second order on the merits of the case. It is advised that when the non-bailable warrant will be executed, these accused will be brought before this Court, and the Division Bench would decide the question of granting bail one way or the other. In the very nature of things, while doing so, if permitted by the Division Bench, the counsel for the complainant would be at liberty to argue the entire case. In this view of the matter, it would be an exercise of futility to pass a fresh order again one way or the other. In the very nature of things, while doing so, if permitted by the Division Bench, the counsel for the complainant would be at liberty to argue the entire case. In this view of the matter, it would be an exercise of futility to pass a fresh order again one way or the other. I am, therefore, of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, and particularly because of issue of non-bailable warrant by a Division Bench, and the anticipated consideration of the bail application, if made before that Court, it would not be in the interest of justice to recall the earlier order passed by this Court on 13-5-81. It would be open to the learned counsel for the complainant to bring all the facts and circumstances of this appeal also before the Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench, and to facilitate that it is also ordered that this appeal would be tagged with the D.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No. 124/81 admitted on 7-7-81. 9. With the above observations, the application u/s 482, Cr.P.C. is rejected.Application rejected. *******