Whether Revision Under Section 397 Cr.P.C. Is Maintainable Against Order Granting Default Bail: Supreme Court To Consider
The Supreme Court has recently issued notice in a special leave petition to decide whether a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘Cr.P.C.’), would be maintainable against a default bail order passed under Section 167(2) of the Cr.P.C..
The petition was filed against the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court dismissing a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and directing the Petitioner herein to surrender.
The Vacation Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Augustine George Masih ordered, “Issue notice, returnable on 23rd August, 2024. The issue for consideration in this Special Leave Petition is whether a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would be maintainable against a default bail order passed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C…There appears to be no decision by this Court on this issue, though there are several judgments of the High Courts.”
AoR Shantwanu Singh appeared for the Petitioner.
The Court also directed, “Pending further orders, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with FIR No. 306 on the file of Police Station Lajpat Nagar, District South-East, Delhi.”
The Delhi High Court had observed that the grant of statutory bail cannot be considered as an interlocutory order as it is a final order releasing the applicant on bail as the investigation could not be completed and the final report could not be filed within the period 60 or 90 days by the prosecution.
The High Court was dealing with a petition challenging the order of the Principal District and Sessions Judge by which the revision petition of the State was allowed and the order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, granting statutory bail under Section 167(2) of CrPC was set aside.
The High Court had observed, “The petitioner herein was claiming a statutory bail under Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. and, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate erred in applying the test that may be relevant for considering an application for Bail under Section 437 of the Cr.P.C., that is, of whether a prima facie case against the Applicant had been made out or not. This error has rightly been corrected by the learned PD&SJ in the Impugned Order passed on the Revision Petition filed by the State.”
Accordingly, the Court issued notice and listed the matter for a further date.
Cause Title: Amarjeet Singh Dhillon v. State of NCT of Delhi
Appearances:
Petitioner: AOR Shantwanu Singh and Advocate Vijay Laxmi Rathi.
