Bail order cannot be challenged via revision plea: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently upheld the Supreme Court’s position that a bail order cannot be set aside through revision proceedings [Raju Anna Chaughule v. State of Maharashtra]

Single-judge Justice Anil Kilor cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana to reiterate that bail orders do not fall under those category of interlocutory orders which are subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Section 397(2) states that the powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.

The Court held that a revision will not lie against a bail order.

“It is evident that the term ‘interlocutory order’ used in sub section 2 of Section 397 of CrPC 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 (does) not amount to interlocutory orders against which a revision under Section 397 (2) of Cr.P.C can be maintained.”

The Court was hearing an application filed by Raju Anna Chaughule who was arrested in connection with a cheating case registered at the Panchavati Police Station in Nashik.

After Chaughule surrendered to police on April 15, he was granted bail by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) of Nashik who reasoned that the alleged offences did not carry a punishment exceeding seven years.

However, the State challenged this decision through a revision application before the Sessions court.

On April 24, the Additional Sessions Judge in Nashik overturned the ACJM’s order and cancelled Chaughule's bail.

This prompted Chaughule to appeal to the High Court.

He argued that cancellation of his bail was outside the jurisdiction of the Sessions Court as there had been no explicit prayer for such action in the revision application.

Justice Kilor accepted this argument after noting that the prayer clauses in the State's revision plea did not seek quashing of the bail order.

“None of the prayers suggests such relief sought by the State in the said revision," the Court observed.

The Court also noted that it was an admitted fact that the State had moved a separate application for cancellation of bail.

The court referring to the findings in the apex court's ruling in Amar Nath 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.”

Further, a bail order cannot be challenged by way of a revision plea, the Court held.

Hence, the High Court concluded that the revisional court without there being jurisdiction or any prayer for cancellation of bail, cancelled the bail granted to the accused,

Therefore, it quashed the Sessions Court’s order to the extent of cancelling Chaughule's bail while allowing the State to pursue its application for bail cancellation before the trial court.

Advocates Ganesh Gupta and Hemant Bhand, Sahil Ghorpade, Madan Khansole, Jagrut Patil and Surya Gupta instructed by GG Legal Associates, appeared for the accused.

Advocate Ashok Tajane appeared for the complainant

Additional Public Prosecutor Veera Shinde appeared for the State.

[Read Order]