Order.- This is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Courtagainst the order passed by me in Crl.M.P. No. 887 of 1959 refusing bail to thepetitioners. The office has put up a note pointing out that such an applicationdoes not lie. This matter has been posted for orders on the note put up by theoffice. The question is whether such an application lies. This is presented under Article 134(1)(c) of the Constitution. Under Article134(1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final orderor sentence in a criminal proceedings of a High Court. The question is whetheran order passed in the above Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is a final order.The Explanation to Article 132 states that the expression “finalorder” includes an order deciding an issue which if decided in favour of theappellant, would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. An order on abail application, even if it is in favour of the petitioners, would certainlynot decide the case in their favour, that is to say, will not result in anacquittal. It is well known that an order releasing the accused on bail can becancelled subsequently. Equally an order refusing bail at one stage may also bemodified subsequently by an order directing the petitioners to be released onbail. The principle laid down in Krishna v. State1, andDhanalakshmi v. Income-tax Officer2, will apply withequal force to an order on a bail petition as it cannot be said to be a finalorder in as much as it does not decide the issue between the parties and as itdoes not result either in conviction or acquittal of the petitioners. This notbeing a final order, Article 134(1)(c) will not apply. Therefore this petitionis incompetent and is rejected. P.R.N. ----- Petition dismissed.