C.A.Rahim - (1.) THIS revision has been directed against the order dated 17.5.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Budaun in Criminal Case No. 9 of 1997 cancelling the ball of the applicants. Perused the record of Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9627 of 1996 and Criminal Misc. Ball Application No. 695 of 1997. The bail was cancelled by the learned Judge on the ground that bail application of Dhanpal was rejected by the High Court on 4.11.1996 in Criminal Misc. Ball Application No. 9627 of 1996 and the bail application of Godey was pending before the High Court In Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 695 of 1997. The allegation was that suppressing those facts both the applicants filed bail application before the lower court and the same was allowed.
(2.) SRI G. R. S. Pal appearing for the revisionists has submitted that the applicant did not engage any counsel to move the bail application and hence they are not at fault and they had no other motive in obtaining the bail from the lower court. Learned A. G. A. has submitted that the instant revision is not maintainable since the impugned order is an interlocutory order. In Bhola and others v. State of U. P., 1979 (16) ACC 155, a Division Bench of this Court held : "It may be that an order of cancellation of bail deprives an accused of his liberty and for him, it may be a matter of moment but because of the reasons discussed, it cannot escape the bar imposed by Section 397 (2), Cr. P.C. and is purely an interlocutory order. We are, therefore, of the opinion that no revision lies against the impugned order as it is an interlocutory order within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code."
(3.) IN Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, 1977 SC 2185, it has been held that an order which does not decide any of the matter in dispute or substantially decide a vital issue in the case against the accused touching the merit of the case or rights of the parties will be an INterlocutory order. In the instant case, bail granted in favour of the revisionist has been cancelled on the ground of misrepresentation. As such, cancellation of bail does not decide the fact in issue and accordingly, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it is held to be an interlocutory order. The Division Bench of this High Court has categorically expressed the said opinion. Moreover, in the case of cancellation of the bail, right of the accused to file fresh application for bail does not cease as day to day detention entitles him to file application for bail, but consideration of the same on merits or in the light of other attending circumstances is left to the court but that does not disentitle the accused persons to lodge application.;