Sri. Pal Singh vs State of U.P.

V.P. Mathur, J.—Smt. M. Chaudhary, the then II Additional Sessions Judge, Shahjahanpur, while disposing of Criminal Misc. Application No. 19 of 1987, arising out of the Case Crime No. 105 of 1987, pertaining to police station Kanth, district Shahjahanpur, on 3-12-1987 cancelled the bail granted to the applicant Sripal by the Magistrate.

The brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by Shri Krishan against the present revisionist on 31-3-1987 and the allegations were that at about 12.00 noon Sripal fired at him with an intention to kill with an unlicensed gun and caused him gun shot injuries on his thigh and abdomen. He also injured his brother Pratipal Singh. A case was registered u/s 307, IPC, investigation was made and a charge sheet was submitted against Sripal Singh on 3-5-1987 as an absconder u/s 307, IPC. It appears that thereafter somehow the police cancelled this charge sheet and submitted another one, this being for an offence u/s 324 IPC after all this Sripal Singh surrendered in the Court of the Magistrate concerned, who granted him bail for an offence u/s 324 IPC.

The State then moved an application for cancellation of the bail and the matter came up before Smt. M. Chaudhary. She was of the view that the order passed by the learned Magistrate was without jurisdiction. He should have looked into the FIR and in the light of the injury reports, it should be a case u/s 307 IPC and bail should not have been granted. She cancelled the bail and directed the applicant to be taken into custody. Against this order the present revision has been filed.

On behalf of the State it is opposed on the ground that it does not lie. It is contended that the order granting or rejecting or cancelling the bail is an interlocutory order against which no revision lies. The two leading cases in this respect are (1) Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, and Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1978 AWC 96.

The Court has held that the expression interlocutory has not been so used in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the restricted sense of an order which is converse to the term ''final order''. An order which does not decide any of the matters in dispute or which does not substantially decide any vital issue in the case against the accused, touching the merits of the case or rights of the parties, will still be an interlocutory order. Cataloguing of such orders will not be possible. In the case of ''Amar Nath'', while giving examples of what is interlocutory within the meaning of Section 397(2) of the Code, the Supreme Court mentioned the word " passing orders for bail". This term was interpreted by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola v. State 1979 ACR 164 and it was held that it will include the granting, rejecting and cancelling the bail. This being the legal position, the order cancelling the bail will be an interlocutory order against which a revision shall be barred u/s 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

As such the revision is dismissed as not maintainable.