1. Respondent No. 1 (accused) firstly has been admitted to interim bail vide order dated 11.05.2012, which has thereafter been confirmed vide order dated 17.05.2012, passed by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag. Dissatisfied therewith, instant revision petition has been filed. 2. Perusal of the police report, which has been called by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while considering the petition for bail, would reveal that on 2nd March, 2011, Police Station Bijbehara had received an information from reliable sources to the effect that a girl, namely, Shabeena Hassan D/O Ghulam Hassan Lone R/O Lalipora adopted daughter of Abdul Gani R/O Hussanpora Bijbehara has consumed some poisonous/substance so as to end her life. Based on said information, case has been registered as Crime No.28/2011 PIS Bijbehara for commission of offence punishable under Section 309 RFC. During investigation the dead body was got photographed and post-mortem was also got conducted. During photography, on the left hand, following words were found written "Sahil nay mujay mara, os kay naam zindagi shuru ki thi, osi per khatam, 9906617858 S+S". Froth like substance was found in the mouth and nose of the deceased and a bottle containing poisonous substance was also produced by one Ghulam Mohammad Ganai S/o Abdul Ahad Ganai R/o Hassanpora Taweela. After post-mortem dead body was buried. The Viscera was sent for opinion to FSL, Srinagar, where poison was not detected, therefore, offence under Section 309 RFC was converted to offence under Section 306 RFC. Accused Shamim Ahmad was arrested for commission of said offence on 11.03.2011. Questionnaire was sent to the Medical Officer and the cause of death has been answered to be due to "blunt trauma leading to intra cranial haemorrhage leading to cardio-respiratory arrest". Based on said post-mortem report and the answers to the questions, offence under Section 302 RFC was added. During investigation, the witnesses have stated that deceased had gone to the house of accused Shameem Ahmad Reshi, who felt ashamed before his family members and as a result thereof he slapped and pushed her, she fell down and struck with the Veranda, her head was injured, she was administered water by mother of the accused, later on she was handed over to her parents. Finally, it has been concluded that the death is due to the head injury. Finally, it has been concluded that the death is due to the head injury. File was submitted by the investigating officer to the Prosecuting Officer for his opinion, who opined that offence under Section 304 RFC is made out, accordingly investigation of the case was concluded and charge sheet (challan) was presented before the Court and the accused afresh was taken into custody on 21.4.2012. 3. Now firstly the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate has exercised the discretion in a judicious manner and secondly as to whether revision petition is maintainable as the grant of bail is an interim arrangement pending trial which is subject to change dependent upon the developments as shall take place during the trial. 4. Grant of bail is in the discretion of the Court and while exercising such discretion, on the one hand, Court has to keep in view the right of liberty as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution but on the other hand Court has also to look into the gravity and heinousness of the offence coupled with the fact that the conscience of the society is not hurt. Exercise of discretion is dependent on host of circumstances. Grant of bail vis-a-vis offence punishable under Section 304 RFC is not totally forbidden, so there is scope for exercise of discretion, which discretion is not unfettered or untrammeled, has to be exercised on sound judicial principles. Court of law is a court of justice, has to strike balance while exercising discretion so as to advance the object of judicious use of such discretion. Court cannot afford to be liberal. If keeping of the accused at large would shock conscience of the society, then court has to be loath in granting bail, therefore, "exceptional clause" comes into play. Grant of bail is a rule, refusal exception. 5. The offence, as has been committed, no doubt, is serious but keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the puzzling position as created at the beginning coupled with the conduct of the deceased, the learned Magistrate has not exceeded the limit while exercising discretion. After all grant or refusal of bail shall neither be taken as acquittal nor conviction, it is a pure arrangement during trial. After all grant or refusal of bail shall neither be taken as acquittal nor conviction, it is a pure arrangement during trial. Curtailment of liberty can be unavoidable in certain cases whereas curtailment of liberty in certain cases shall amount to punishment before conviction. 6. The deceased, as per records, appears to have been clamouring to get married to accused Shameem Ahmad Reshi. The words scribed on her palm would also show, prima facie, her desire as it was. The puzzling position i.e. she allegedly had gone to the house of the accused and accused felt ashamed before his family members and allegedly slapped her, then deceased having felt unconscious, then presence of froth in her mouth, position of the bottle containing poisonous substance, position of death due to poising negated by the FSL reports, would indicate as to how the puzzling position has been prevalent and initially in view of that position, it is not only accused but his brother and other family members were arrested as accused but the investigating agency noticed that the mother of the accused had served glass of water to deceased, then assurance from mother of the accused to the deceased that her marriage with accused Shameem Ahmad will be sorted out, would all show that a fit case has been carved out which has persuaded the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate to grant bail in favour of the accused Shameem Ahmad. 7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in fact offence committed is murder, which falls within the scope of Section 302 RFC, is not open to be commented upon because charge sheet (challan) has been presented and charge has been framed by the trial court against the accused for the commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RFC. Order where under charge has been framed against the accused, has not been challenged. That apart, the grant of bail is open to be recalled/cancelled on motion provided firm foundation for such cancellation is laid, 8. Now the question is 'as to whether revision petition is maintainable'. In this connection, learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in 2004 (I) S.L.J 283; 2010 (3) JKJ [HC] 367, wherein it has been held that if an application for bail, in anticipation of arrest, under Section 497-A Cr. Now the question is 'as to whether revision petition is maintainable'. In this connection, learned counsel has relied on the judgment reported in 2004 (I) S.L.J 283; 2010 (3) JKJ [HC] 367, wherein it has been held that if an application for bail, in anticipation of arrest, under Section 497-A Cr. P. C is rejected by the Court of Sessions, fresh application can be entertained by the High Court. It has also been held that the order of rejection can also be challenged before the High Court in revision petition. 9. Next learned counsel relied on the judgment captioned Amar Nath & ors v. State of Haryana, reported in AIR 1977 SC 2185 , wherein it has been held "any order which substantially affects the right of the accused or decides rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order". It has been further held "orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court". In the instant case the order granting bail has not, in any manner, affected or adjudicated upon rights of the accused or particular aspect of the trial nor rights are finally decided. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, while granting bail, has not converted offence 304 into 302 but in fact charge sheet (challan) has been presented for commission of offence punishable under Section 304 RPC and the subsequent development i.e. the charge has been framed by the court for the commission of same offence, which order has not been challenged, therefore, grant of bail, in the given circumstances, cannot be said to have, in any manner, adjudicated rights of the parties nor has effect of disturbing the trial. Therefore, such order, as it is, cannot be termed to be a final order, therefore, falls within the ambit of 'interlocutory' order against which, in terms of Section 435 Cr. P. C, revision cannot be maintained. 10. Therefore, such order, as it is, cannot be termed to be a final order, therefore, falls within the ambit of 'interlocutory' order against which, in terms of Section 435 Cr. P. C, revision cannot be maintained. 10. Learned counsel next relied on the judgment rendered by this court in case captioned State of J&K v. Khaliq Ahangar & ors, reported in K. L. J 1999 384, wherein it has been held that revision against the order granting bail is maintainable. In the reported case, court had exercised discretion under Section 561-A Cr. P. C which clothes the Court with the power to exercise power so as to secure ends of justice and to avoid miscarriage of justice. In the instant case, position is altogether different as grant of bail, in the peculiar facts and features, has not, in any manner, adjudicated the rights of the parties nor has any adverse affect on the trial. Revision petition can be maintained against those orders which have adverse affect on the rights of the parties or the rights of the parties will get adjudicated upon, not otherwise. 11. Finally, counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has powers to cancel bail as has been granted by the subordinate court while exercising powers under Section 498 Cr. P.C, which corresponds to Section 437 of the Central Code. In support of this contention, has relied on the judgment reported in AIR 2002 SC 1475 . The facts of the reported case are altogether different. Law has to be applied on the factual foundation. Every case has to be considered in the background of its own factual matrix. As on date, no firm foundation has been laid which would call for cancellation of bail as already, granted to the accused. 12. It shall be open for the complainant/prosecution to seek cancellation of concession as granted, at any stage during the trial if the circumstances or developments at any stage are such which warrant that accused being at large shall be detrimental to the smooth trial of the case or for any other cogent reason, which shall be open to be considered by the trial court. 13. On the aforesaid terms, the revision petition shall stand disposed of along with connected CMP. 14. 13. On the aforesaid terms, the revision petition shall stand disposed of along with connected CMP. 14. Record of the application, as was called from the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag, along with copy of the judgment be sent back. Copy of the judgment be also sent to the trial court for information.