ORDER K. L. Shrivastava, J. 1. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 8-11-88 passed by the Sessions Judge, whereby he has substituted the conditions imposed by the Magistrate in the bail order. 2. Circumstances giving rise to this revision petition are these: On the report lodged by the petitioner, a crime under sections 294 and 506 (Part II) IPC has been registered by the police against the non-applicants No.1 and 2 who are her brothers-in-law. 3. When the non-applicants 1 and 2 applied to the Magistrate for bail, the petitioner put in appearance and opposed the prayer. The learned Magistrate, allowed the application for bail but imposed certain conditions, whereby they were also required to appear twice a week at the named police station. 4. Against the imposition of conditions, non-applicants 1 and 2, filed, what they termed a revision petition. The learned Sessions Judge removed the conditions and ordered that the bail shall be subject to the condition that the petitioner shall not in any way try to tamper with the prosecution evidence and in case any complaint in this regard is received, the same shall be enquired into summarily by the Court concerned and on its being found correct the bail granted to the petitioner shall be liable to be rejected. 5. The grievance of the petitioner in this Court is that the learned Sessions Judge allowed the application of the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the applicant or to the State. In support reliance is placed on the decision reported in Bhagwant Singh's case AIR 1985 SC 1285 . 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the non-applicants 1 and 2 is that as held by this Court in the order in Misc. Cr. Case No. 1162 of 85 passed on 16-10-85 the petitioner had no locus standi to oppose the prayer for bail and that the Public Prosecutor had been duly heard. He, however, urges that he has no objection to the matter being remanded to the Sessions Court for a fresh order after hearing the applicant and the Public Prosecutor. 7. Cr. Case No. 1162 of 85 passed on 16-10-85 the petitioner had no locus standi to oppose the prayer for bail and that the Public Prosecutor had been duly heard. He, however, urges that he has no objection to the matter being remanded to the Sessions Court for a fresh order after hearing the applicant and the Public Prosecutor. 7. In the miscellaneous criminal case referred to above, this Court has observed: "Grant of refusal of bail in a cognizable offence is entirely a matter between the applicant, State and the Court and the complaint having lodged the complaint and thereafter having set the machinery in motion except for evidentiary purpose, he has no other role to play in the matter. Unless there are exceptional circumstances alleging that the State interest is not safe-guarded it is possible only in such' situation that a complainant may intervene, but that does not appear to be the situation in the case. In such circumstances, the complainant cannot be heard to oppose the bail petition" 8. As pointed out in State v. Jaspal Singh AIR 1984 SC 1503 several considerations enter in the decision of a bail application and a party may be possessed of more material than the State. 9. That nobody should be condemned unheard is one of the principles of natural justice. In the decision in P. S. Sarvanabhavanandam's 1986 Cr. LJ 1540 case with reference to the decision in Antulay's case AIR 1984 SC 718 it has been observed as under: "When a party cannot be impleded in a criminal proceeding, he cannot be permitted to come in under the guise of an intervener. But, at the same time the right of a party to represent matters before the Court cannot be whittled down into a straight-jacket formula of locus standi which is unknown to criminal jurisprudence. It is open to any party to make his representations in the bail proceedings pending before the High Court before the inquiry or trial starts." Reference at this stage may also be made to the Head Note in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra). It reads thus: "Criminal P. C.(2 of 1974), Ss. It is open to any party to make his representations in the bail proceedings pending before the High Court before the inquiry or trial starts." Reference at this stage may also be made to the Head Note in Bhagwant Singh's case (supra). It reads thus: "Criminal P. C.(2 of 1974), Ss. 190 (1) (b) and 154 (2), 157 (2) and 173 (2) (ii)-First informant opportunity of being heard Magistrate deciding not to take cognizance of offence or drop proceedings against some persons mentioned in FIR-Magistrate must give notice and hear first informant." Section 301 (2) of the Code applies where a case is under inquiry, trial or appeal. 10. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the law discussed above, I am of the view that it is in the interest of justice to send the case back to the Sessions Court for a fresh decision after hearing the State as well as the applicant. 11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Sessions Court for fresh decision in the light of what has been observed above.