IMPORTANT POINT
Compliance with court orders is essential for an accused on bail, and the power of revision does not extend to interlocutory orders.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the parties.

2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the order dated 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner- who is an accused in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 failed to comply with the direction of the trial court to remain physically present before it and directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner.

3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner/accused was directed to appear physically before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; for the purpose of supply of police paper and allied purposes. The petitioner did not remain physically present before the Judicial Magistrate on 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; but got filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C, through his advocate. The said prayer was not accepted by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class and the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; by filing Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022.

4. The learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 observed that the order by which the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled was an interlocutory order. Hence, Criminal Revision will not lie against such order and did not interfere with the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the said order dated 15.07.2022 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, have been passed mechanically by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the said orders are harassing and oppressive against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that therefore the same be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the order dated 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and submits that undisputedly the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur dated 15.07.2022 is an interlocutory order and as in view of Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the power of revision shall not be exercise in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding; hence the learned Sessions Judge has rightly not exercised the power of revision in respect of such order. It is then submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022.

7. So far as the order dated 15.07.2022 passed in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 is concerned, learned P.P. appearing for the State submits that it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to the accused do not confer unfettered right to the accused to not appear b