An order granting, refusing, or cancelling bail is an interlocutory order, and no revision lies against such order under Section 397(2), Cr.P.C. However, the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482, Cr.P.C., to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or to secure the ends of justice.

( 1 ) THIS revisional application filed by the petitioners accused persons is directed against the order dated 5-12-1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore whereby the learned Sessions Judge cancelled interim bail granted to the petitioners by the learned SDJM, Jhargram in G. R. Case No. 333/ 92 which was initially started under Sections 147/148/326/307/379, I. P. C. and later on Section 302, I. P. C. was also added thereto as the victim succumbed to the injuries later in the hospital: The incident took place on 30-6-1998. The FIR was lodged on 2-7-1998 at 12. 25 p. m. giving explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. The victim died at the hospital on 2-7-1998 at 6. 30 p. m. On the prayer of the 1. 0. on 4-7-1998 Section 302, I. P. C. was added. On 10-7-1998 an application for anticipatory bail was filed by the petitioners before the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore and the learned Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail to the petitioners on 10-8-1998. In view of the order of anticipatory bail the petitioners surrendered before the learned SDJM, Jhargram on 13-8-1998 and. 17-8-1998 in batches and they were granted interim bail by the learned SDJM, Jharagram. Against the interim bail the de facto complainant moved an application under Section 439 (2), Cr. P. C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Midnapore praying for cancellation of the interim bail. The learned Sessions Judge by his order dated 5-12-1998 cancelled the interim bail granted by the learned Magistrate for reasons recorded in the impugned order and directed the petitioners to surrender before the learned SDJM by 14-2-1998. The present revisional application is directed against the said order of the learned Sessions Judge cancelling the interim bail granted by the learned SDJM.

( 2 ) THE learned Advocate for the petitioner has inter alia submitted that the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge after perusing the case diary and he was not justified in cancelling the interim bail granted by the learned SDJM. It has been further submitted that the allegation has been made that the petitioners suppressed the fact that Section 302. I. P. C. was added in the FIR later, but as a matter of fact the petitioners were not aware of that fact and the question suppression does not arise because the anticipatory bail was granted by the learned Sessions Judge after considering the C. D. and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor. These are however matters relating to the question of merit, but a threshold objection has been raised on behalf of the opposite parties before this Court that a revisional application against the impugned order is not maintainable at all in as much as an order granting, refusing or cancelling bail is an interlocutory order and therefore no revision lies against such order in view of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. Both sides have made their submissions before us on this point and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also attracted our attention to the recently reported decision of a three-Judge Special Bench of this Court in Dukhi Shyam Benupani v. Parashmal Ram Puria. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to an earlier order of this Bench dated 19-11-1998 in CRR 1781 of 1998 in which a revisional application against an order of cancellation of bail was entertained and disposed of by passing some directions. However it is to be mentioned here that the question of maintainability of the revisional application was not at all raised or considered in that matter. But now the question of maintainability has been specifically raised before us in this matter and we have to consider the same. The Special Bench in the said decision considered the matter elaborately and also the provisions of Section 397 (2), Cr. P. C. , which says that the powers of revision conferred by subsection (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory ord