JUDGMENT 1. - Since these revisions involve common question, they are being disposed of by a common order. 2. By way of the instant identical revisions, the complainant petitioner has approached this Court assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure-4), whereby the bail applications preferred by the respondents under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. were allowed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road. 3. Facts in brief are that the accused respondents were arrayed as accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2014 registered at P.S. Abu Road City at the petitioner's instance. 4. While entertaining anticipatory bail applications filed on behalf of the accused respondent, this Court directed them to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 3,10,063/-, which was the amount sanctioned for the disputed work and thereafter they were given liberty to surrender before the concerned Addl. Sessions Judge within a period of three weeks and to move a regular bail application which was directed to be decided on the same day as per law. The respondents accused were provided interim protection till the said period of three weeks. The respondent accused accordingly deposited demand draft for the above amount and then surrendered before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Abu Road and moved regular bail applications. By order dated 28.10.2014, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge released them on bail. The complainant has now approached this Court by way of the instant revision assailing the legality and validity of the order dated 28.10.2014 whereby the respondents were released on bail. 5. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the accused were not in custody when they applied for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and thus the learned Addl. Sessions Judge was not even having jurisdiction to entertain the bail applications preferred by the accused. 6. Per contra Mr. M.K.Garg, learned counsel for the accused respondents urges that the accused respondents deposited the demand draft for the disputed amount as directed by this Court and subjected themselves to interrogation before the I.O. before surrendering before the Additional Sessions Judge in terms of this Court's order dated 14.10.2014. He contends that no sooner the accused had surrendered before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the morning of 28.10.2014 they were in deemed custody and thereafter their bail applications were rightly entertained and accepted during the late hours on the same day. He contends that no sooner the accused had surrendered before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the morning of 28.10.2014 they were in deemed custody and thereafter their bail applications were rightly entertained and accepted during the late hours on the same day. Thus, he submits that no illegality or irregularity is reflected in the order impugned so as to call for interference. 7. Having heard and considered the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and after going through the impugned order as well as the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by this Court in the anticipatory bail applications preferred by the accused respondents, it is evident that the accused had been directed to deposit a demand draft of the disputed amount before the I.O. and to submit themselves for interrogation which they complied with. Thereafter in consonance with the liberty given to them by this Court, they surrendered before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge on 28.10.2014 and filed bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. No sooner the accused surrendered before the Addl. Sessions Judge, they were in the deemed custody of the Court and thus the argument advanced by the petitioner's counsel that the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. was entertained without taking the accused in custody is not tenable. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or perversity so as to call for any interference in the exercise of the revisional powers of this Court. 8. The revision petitions thus being devoid of any merit are rejected. *******