IMPORTANT POINT
The Court clarified that while a bail order is interlocutory and not subject to revision, the Sessions Judge retains the power to cancel bail under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T. Ete, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent.

2. This application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, Shri Daja Nimpo, impugning the order dated 20.12.2021, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa in Criminal Revision No. 03/2020, whereby, the bail granted to the petitioner by order dated 11.03.2020 was cancelled.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant criminal petition, in brief, are as follows:

(i) That on 14.01.2020, one Shri Chandru Tanti had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge, Kharsang Police Station, inter alia, alleging that his sons, namely, Shri Sumit Tani and Shri Dhurap Tanti along with son of one Shri Sunil Rotia, namely, Shri Deep Rotia, were missing since 11.01.2020. It was also stated in the FIR that they were last seen playing near a culvert at RWD colony Kharsang.

(ii) On receipt of the said missing report, the Kharsang P.S. Case No. 02/2020 under Section 363 of Indian Penal Code was registered.

4. It is submitted by Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner that as the police suspected the involvement of the present petitioner in the incident of missing of the 3(three) boys whose names were mentioned in the FIR, the petitioner approached the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa, praying for anticipatory bail, however, it was rejected by the said Court. Thereafter, the petitioner surrendered before the Court of Executive Magistrate, Changlang, who was in-charge of the Judicial Magistrate, Changlang on that day, as the concerned Judicial Magistrate was on leave. On his surrender before the Executive Magistrate, the bail application was moved by the petitioner which was allowed by the learned Executive Magistrate, Changlang by his order dated 11.03.2020 and the petitioner was allowed to go on bail of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand) with 2(two) sureties of like amount and with certain conditions. One of the conditions incorporated in the bail order was that he will appear before the Investigating Officer of the Kharsang P.S. Case No. 02/2020 on 12.03.2020 for giving his statement. Thereafter, the Investigating Officer of Kharsang P.S Case No. 02/2020 filed an application, on 13.03.2020, before the Court of learned District & Session Judge, Khonsa, praying for cancellation of the bail on the ground that the prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected by the High Court as well as by the learned Sessions Court and the custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary for the said investigation. On receipt of the said application, the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa registered a criminal revision case, namely, Criminal Revision Case No. 03/2020 and thereafter, by order dated 20.12.2021, exercised the revisional powers of the said Court under Section 397 of Cr.P.C and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner by the Executive Magistrate by order dated 11.03.2020.

5. Mr. D. Kamduk, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though in this criminal petition, the petitioner has also assailed the cancellation of bail order by the Sessions Judge, Khonsa on merit. However, they were not pressing the said points rather the petitioner is pressing the point that the order of the Sessions Judge was without jurisdiction.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the order of grating bail by the Executive Magistrate, in this case, is undoubtedly an interlocutory order, no revision lies against such an order and the learned Sessions Judge, Khonsa was wrong in exercising the revisional power for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Executive Magistrate.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following case in support of his submissions, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Dile Ram reported in 2008 (4) Crimes (H.P) 682, wherein, it was observed