Rajesh Dayal Khare, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned Additional Government Advocate. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing the orderdated 21.09.2011 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Badohi-Gyanpur on an application under section 319 Cr.P.C., filed by the opposite party no.2 in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2010 (State Vs. Bade Deen alias Jai Prakash) under Sections 323, 324, 504 I.P.C., and Sections 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Chauri, District Santravidas Nagar (Bhadohi). 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants that applicants were initially not named in commission of t he alleged offence and they were also not named in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., It is thus argued that summoning of applicants on an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is totally malafide. 4. This court is not competent to go into questions of facts in petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and on the allegations, it cannot be said that no prima facie case is disclosed. 5. Moreover, the applicants has got right of discharge under Section 239 or 227/228 or 245 Cr.P.C. as the case may be through a proper application for the said purpose and they are free to take all the submissions in the said discharge application before the Trial Court. 6. Hence, no ground exists for quashing order impugned. 7. However, in the circumstances of the case, it is provided that if the applicants move an application for surrender before the court concerned within three weeks from today, the Magistrate concerned shall fix a date about ten days thereafter for the appearance of the applicants, in the meantime release the applicants on interim bail on such terms and conditions as the court concerned considers fit and proper till the date fixed for the disposal of the regular bail. 8. The court concerned shall also direct the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions from the investigating officer by the date fixed and as far as possible also give an opportunity of hearing to the informant and thereafter decide the regular bail application of the applicant in accordance with the observations of the Full Bench of this Court in Amrawati and another Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, 2005 Cri. LJ 755, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of UP, (2009) 4, SCC 437 and reiterated by the Division Bench of this Court in Sheoraj Singh alias Chuttan Vs. State of UP and others, 2009 (65) ACC 781. 9. If further instructions are needed or if adjournment of the case on the date fixed for hearing becomes unavoidable, the Court may fix another date, and may also extend the earlier order granting interim bail, if it deems fit provided that the adjournment of hearing of the regular bail on one or more dates should not exceed a total period of one month. 10. It will also be in the discretion of the Sessions/Special Judge concerned to consider granting interim bail pending consideration of the regular bail on similar terms as mentioned herein above when and if the applicants apply for bail before him. 11. In case the applicant failed to appear before the court concerned on the dates fixed or the applicant failed to cooperate with the investigating officer during investigation, it will be open to the Public Prosecutor to move an application for cancelling the order of interim/final bail and the Court concerned may pass an appropriate order on merits. 12. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.