R. K. VARMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a petition filed under sections 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the applicant Mahesh Badriprasad Sharma and is directed against the bail order dated 28. 4. 1988 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of the Sessions Judge, Dewas in Bail Application No. 194 of 1988 arising out of Crime No. 67/88 of Police Station Hat Pipliya, District Dewas, whereby the non-applicant accused Mirukhan (Mir Afzal Khan) Sb. Mehmood Khan has been released on his furnishing a bail for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties for Rs. 10,000/- each. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant has submitted at the out-set that in the light of the Supreme Court decision in Usmanbhai v. State of Gujarat it has become doubtful whether a revision would lie against the order granting bail, like the impugned order, in view of the observations made therein to the effect that grant or refusal of bail application is essentially an interlocutory order and no finality is attached to an order of a Court granting or refusing bail. He, therefore, prays for treating this petition as one under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is entertained under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and it be registered as M. Cr. C. ( 3 ) THE main grievance of the applicant is that even though he was an eye-witness to the incident in which the accused Wilson was attacked and killed by the accused-persons, who had come armed with weapons and he had made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dewas, in that behalf, alleging that the deceased Wilson was not only murdered, but was robbed of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- carried by him in an attached at the time of the incident for the purpose of bidding at the auction which was to take place on 22. 3. 1988 in respect of Hatpipliya Naka, no investigation was made by the Police in respect of the serious allegations of dacoity and even the applicant was not interrogated about it nor included as an eye-witness in the case. The applicants complaint to the Superintendent of Police, has been kept in the case-diary without any serious attempt having been made to investigate the offence of murder with dacoity. The applicants complaint to the Superintendent of Police, has been kept in the case-diary without any serious attempt having been made to investigate the offence of murder with dacoity. ( 4 ) IT is the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the police had been investigating the matter in a partisan manner. The accused was not arrested ever since the occurrence of the incident on 1. AIR 1988 SC 922 . 22. 3. 1988 till he appeared before the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 28. 4. 1988, when he surrendered and moved an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and obtained the impugned bail order. The aforesaid complaint of the applicant was very much in the case-diary and it was pointed out before the learned Addi. Sessions Judge by Shri Daga, counsel appearing to oppose the bail that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which were in possession of the deceased Wilson at the time of the incident, were required to be recovered from the accused. But the learned Additional Sessions Judge incorrectly observed that the perusal of the case-diary did not show any mention in that regard and has granted bail to the accused non- applicant. Learned counsel urged for a direction to the Police for a proper investigation under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel placed reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Kashmir; Devi v. Delhi Administration, in this behalf. ( 5 ) FROM the perusal of the case-diary, it is abundantly dear that no serious notice has been taken of the written-complaint dated 22. 3. 1988 made by the applicant to the Superintendent of Police, Dewas, although in contained serious allegations against the accused persons, having robbed the deceased of Rs. 50,000/- while committing his murder. In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the non-applicants-accused Mirukhan and the State of M. P. that the accused-persons were interrogated about the allegations made in the complaint. But this reply is not satisfactory in the circumstances. The very fact that the applicant was not interrogated about the allegations made in the complaint when he had asserted therein that he was an eye-witness to the incident, shows a very casual approach to the investigation regarding the offence of dacoity with murder. But this reply is not satisfactory in the circumstances. The very fact that the applicant was not interrogated about the allegations made in the complaint when he had asserted therein that he was an eye-witness to the incident, shows a very casual approach to the investigation regarding the offence of dacoity with murder. In the circumstances, I am inclined to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant that the investigation made by the Police in this case, is in a most perfunctory, if not partisan. ( 6 ) IN the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, I deem it fit to direct that even though the challan has been filed, the police shall make a proper investigation 1. AIR 1988 SC 1323 . with respect to the alleged offence of dacoity with murder as alleged in the complaint aforesaid in exercise of powers under section 173 (8) of the code of criminal Procedure. ( 7 ) AS regards the applicants submission for cancellation of bail granted to the non-applicant Mirukhan by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, I find no reason to cancel the bail of the non- applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has apart from the case diary material, considered the allegation that the accused was 60 years of age and was a heart-patient and while granting bail has put two conditions, firstly, that the applicant shall not move-out of the district without permission of the court and, secondly, that he shall not in any manner try to influence the prosecution witness. However, in view of further investigation required to be done with respect to the alleged offence of dacoity, the impugned bail order is liable to be modified by adding a third condition that the non-applicant-accused shall give all co-operation in further investigation by the police into the alleged offence of dacoity with murder. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, it is directed that the police shall make a proper investigation with respect to the allegation of dacoity with murder as made by the applicant in his complaint to the Superintendent of Police. In exercise of powers under section 173 (8) of the code of criminal Procedure and that the bail of the applicant shall continue subject to the condition that he gives all co-operation to the police in its further investigation as directed. 8. In exercise of powers under section 173 (8) of the code of criminal Procedure and that the bail of the applicant shall continue subject to the condition that he gives all co-operation to the police in its further investigation as directed. 8. With the directions made as above this petition is disposed of accordingly. .