Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 138
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
M. Soundararajan
Versus
The Inspector of Police, (Previously Team XXII), Chennai & Others
Criminal Revision Case No. 956 of 2009
Decided On :18-01-2010
For the Petitioner:S. Shankar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, A. Saravanan, Government Advocate (Crl.Side), R2, R3, S. Ananthanarayanan, Advocate.
An order declining to cancel bail granted earlier is not revisable as it is not a final order in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Headnote:
Revision - Bail Cancellation - The court held that an order declining to cancel the bail granted earlier is not revisable as it is not a final order in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner was advised to pursue other legal remedies.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to cancel the bail granted to the accused in a criminal case, but the court found the revision to be highly misconceived and advised the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the revision to be highly misconceived and not maintainable, and advised the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies.
Issues: The issue was whether the court could entertain a revision seeking to cancel bail granted earlier in a criminal case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that an order declining to cancel the bail granted earlier is not revisable as it is not a final order in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C.
Final Decision: The Revision was dismissed as not maintainable, with the petitioner advised to pursue other legal remedies.
The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Cr.No.250 0f 2008 on the file of the first respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 are the accused. The offences are under Sections 419, 465, 468, 471 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The respondents 2 and 3 were granted bail by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, in C.M.P.No.1538 of 2008 dated 12.05.2008. Subsequently, the petitioner filed C.M.P.No.1580 of 2009 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 437 (5) of Cr.P.C for cancellation of Bail. It was dismissed by the learned Magistrate by order dated 19.08.2009 on certain grounds. Challenging the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this Revision Case.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.
3. At the outset, I have to state that this Revision is highly misconceived. It is the law that an order declining to cancel the bail granted earlier is not revisable as it is not a final order in terms of Section 397 of Cr.P.C. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he can very well workout his remedy challenging the impugned order in the manner known to law. I am of the considered view that filing Revision is no answer to the grievance of the petitioner. On this ground alone, I am inclined to dismiss the Revision. It is made clear that in this matter no opinion has been expressed regarding the other grounds raised.
4. In the result, the Revision is dismissed as not maintainable, however, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies in the manner known to law.
