Bombay High Court Confirms That Revision Petition Cannot Be Filed Against Bail Granting Order.
The Bombay High Court has emphasized that a bail order is not considered an interlocutory order, which means it cannot be revised under Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. The Court reviewed an application that contested the cancellation of bail in a revision application, even though there was no request for bail cancellation. Justice S. Kilor noted that the term “interlocutory order” in Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. includes challenges to bail orders. The Supreme Court of India has clearly stated that a bail grant does not qualify as an interlocutory order eligible for revision under this section.
The applicant was disputing a decision made in a Criminal Revision Application that overturned the regular bail granted by the Magistrate. The applicant’s lawyer argued that the cancellation of bail was beyond jurisdiction, referencing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amar Nath and Ors v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1977). He also highlighted that there was no request for bail cancellation in the revision, yet it was still revoked. He argued that this action was unlawful as it unjustly took away the applicant’s liberty.
The Court began by highlighting that it is important to recognize that the State had filed a separate application to cancel the bail granted to the applicant. Therefore, initially, it cannot be concluded that the State’s revision was aimed at canceling the bail. The Court also pointed out that a review of the prayer clause shows that none of the requests indicate that the State sought such relief. The first clause requests to summon R and P for review and to allow the revision, while the second clause seeks legal and equitable reliefs. There was no specific request to overturn the order denying police custody or to cancel the bail, the Court noted.
The Court referenced Amar Nath (Supra) to confirm that the term ‘interlocutory order’ in sub-section 2 of Section-397 of Cr.P.C. includes challenges to bail orders, but a revision against such interlocutory orders is not permissible.
Cause Title: Raju Anna Chaughule vs The State Of Maharashtra
