Revision Petition Not Maintainable Against Order Granting Bail: Bombay High Court Reiterates

The Bombay High Court has re-iterated that the order granting bail does not amount to interlocutory orders against which a revision under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C can be maintained.

The Court was considering an application challenging the order cancelling bail in the revision application, without even a prayer for cancellation of bail. 

The Bench of Justice S. Kilor observed, "From the above referred observations, it is evident that the term ‘interlocutory order’ used in sub section 2 of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. covers the challenge made to the orders for bail. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in clear term has observed that the order of granting bail not amount to interlocutory orders against which a revision under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C can be maintained."

The applicant was represented by Advocate Ashok Tajane while the respondent was represented by APP Veera Shinde.

The applicant was challenging an order passed in a Criminal Revision Application setting aside the regular bail granted to the applicant by the Magistrate.

Counsel for the applicant submitted that the order cancelling the bail granted to the applicant is without jurisdiction as held by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Amar Nath and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1977). He further pointed out that there was no prayer was made in the revision for cancellation of bail and despite the same, it was cancelled. He, accordingly, submitted that the order is illegal as a liberty was taken away in a wrongful manner.

The Court, at the outset, noted that it is pertinent to note that it is an admitted fact that the State had moved a separate application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant and thus at the first instance, it cannot be said that the revision filed by the State was for cancellation of bail. The Court further noted that it is evident from looking at the prayer clause that none of the prayers suggests such a relief was sought by the State.

"The clause (a) shows that the prayer was made to call R and P for perusal and allow the revision and prayer clause (b) shows that, the legal and equitable reliefs was sought. There was no specific prayer about quashing of the order rejecting the police custody or for cancellation of bail," the court stated.

The Court referred to Amar Nath (Supra) to affirm that the term ‘interlocutory order’ used in sub-section 2 of Section-397 of Cr.P.C. covers the challenge made to the orders for bail, however against such interlocutory orders, a revision is not maintainable.

Cause Title: Raju Anna Chaughule vs The State Of Maharashtra

Click here to read/ download Order