H. L. Kapoor, J. - (1.) TOTA Ram, Kripal Singh and Ram Swarup, accused applicants (in Jail), have preferred this application in revision against the order, dated 1st April, 1975, of Sri R. B. Lal, Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr, cancelling the bail granted to the applicants.
(2.) IT appears that the said applicants and one Tara Chand were accused in a case under Section 396, Indian Penal Code. The charge against the applicants was that one woman and her six year old son were done to death at about 4.30 O'clock in the evening of 18th December, 1974, and certain property belonging to them was looted. An application for bail was preferred by the applicants, and it was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge on 7th January, 1975. Thereafter, another application for bail made by Tota Ram and Kripal Singh was also rejected on 1st February, 1975. IT transpires that all the three applicants and Tara Chand ultimately obtained an order for bail being granted by the Munsif Magistrate on 18th February, 1975. This order for bail was passed by him purporting to be under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure, making an observation that more than 60 days had elapsed but no charge-sheet was submitted. It further appears that thereafter an application for cancellation of the said bail being granted to the applicants was moved on 26th February, 1975, on the main grounds that the order, dated 18th February, 1975, passed by the Magistrate granting the bail, was illegal, that the charge-sheet was received, and that the applicants who were granted bail were trying to temper with evidence. This application for cancellation of bail was contested by the accused. The learned Sessions Judge being of the view that the charge-sheet was received in court on 15th March, 1975, and the accused being sent to jail on 20th December, 1974, a period of 60 days had just expired, and he being further of the view that the Magistrate passed the order of bail in ignorance of the fact that the charge-sheet had been submitted by the investigating officer and the Circle Officer had also ordered for its being submitted to the court concerned, and the date '24-1-75' of the order of the Circle Officer being in his own hand, it could not be doubted that the charge-sheet was submitted within 60 days of the arrest of the accused, cancelled the bail granted to the applicants. This view of the learned Sessisons Judge, obviously, appears to be wrong, because under Section 167, Code of Criminal Procedure (New), the charge-sheet should be submitted in court within 60 days, which was not done in this case. It appears that due to this misapprehension, the learned Sessions Judge cancelled the bail.
(3.) BEING aggrieved against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of the applicants, the present application in revision has been filed in this Court. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the opposite parties that the order for cancellation of bail passed by the Sessions Judge was only interlocutory, and hence in view of Section 397 (2) of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, no revision could lie and is not entertainable against the said order. The learned counsel placed reliance upon a case, Dhola v. State, 1975 CrLJ 1274 apart from the words of Section 397(2) of the Code, which clearly prescribe that the powers of revision conferred by sub-Section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. It was observed in the said reported case as follows ;- "An interlocutory order is one which is passed at, some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance the cause of justice for the final determination of the rights between the parties. The expression 'interlocutory order' does not change its complexion when applied to the Code of Criminal Procedure. It can, therefore, be said that the grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order as it enlarges the accused in non-bailable cases to defend himself adequately and thereby assist the cause of justice ; it is passed at some intermediate stage between the commencement and the end of the criminal cases. It does not determine the innocence or the guilt of the accused. A revision, therefore, does not lie against such an order in view of Section 397 (2), new Code of Criminal Procedure." ;