Necessary party in revision and judicial discretion in bail cannot be bypassed by a directed outcome.

In revisional proceedings, a complainant whose application led to the summoning order and whose rights are directly affected by the impugned order is a necessary party and must be heard; non-impleadment deprives the revision of proper adversarial consideration. A superior court also cannot direct a subordinate court to allow a pending bail application on the same day, because bail must be decided through independent judicial discretion on the facts and law. The challenged direction was therefore impermissible and set aside, with the trial court left to consider any bail request independently on its merits in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complainant, at whose instance the summoning order was passed, was a necessary party to the criminal revision; and (ii) whether the High Court could direct the trial court to consider and allow the accused persons' bail application on the same day.

Issue (i): whether the complainant, at whose instance the summoning order was passed, was a necessary party to the criminal revision.

Analysis: The revision challenged an order passed on the complainant's application summoning additional accused. Since the revisional order directly affected the complainant's rights and the order under challenge had been made at his instance, he was entitled to be heard in the revision proceedings. Non-impleadment of the complainant deprived the revisional court of the necessary adversarial hearing.

Conclusion: The complainant was a necessary party and ought to have been impleaded and heard in the revision.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could direct the trial court to consider and allow the accused persons' bail application on the same day.

Analysis: A superior court cannot command a subordinate court to pass a particular order on a pending bail application. Grant or of bail requires an independent judicial assessment by the trial court on the facts and law applicable to the case. A direction that the application be "allowed" on the same day usurps the discretionary jurisdiction of the subordinate court and undermines judicial independence.

Conclusion: The direction to the trial court to consider and allow the bail application on the same day was impermissible and was rightly set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the revisional order suffered from procedural as well as jurisdictional error, and the trial court was restored to decide any bail application independently on its merits in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional proceedings, a party whose rights are directly affected by the impugned order and who obtained the original order is a necessary party, and a superior court cannot direct a subordinate court to grant bail or otherwise predetermine the result of an application that must be decided by independent judicial discretion.

---