Criminal revision against the order passed on the bail application is not maintainable as per the provisions of sections 389 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Om Prakash-VII,J.

This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 4.2.2016 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar in criminal appeal no.15 of 2016 whereby the bail application moved on behalf of the revisionist in criminal appeal no.15 of 2016 has been rejected.

2. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned counsel for the revisionist, Sri G.S. Chaturvedi, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Rahul Agarwal and Sri Shishir Tandon, learned counsel for the informant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the revisionist is that the instant revision is maintainable. It cannot be treated as second revision, as the first revision was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to seek appropriate relief from the appropriate court. It is further submitted that the bail application of the applicant was rejected in criminal appeal no.15 of 2016 (B.K. Tiwari Vs. State of U.P.) under section 409 IPC pending before the Sessions Judge, Kanpur Nagar. Hence, order passed by the court below is revisable and the revision is maintainable.

4. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revisionist also referred to the provisions of sections 389 and 401 Cr.P.C. and submitted that under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is clearly provided that the power vested in the appellate court under section 389 Cr.P.C. could be exercised by the revisional court in revision also. Hence, present revision is maintainable and it cannot be treated as second revision.

5. Sri Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party no.2 argued that criminal revision is not maintainable as the order under challenge is an interlocutory order.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 referred to the paragraph 5 of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhola Vs. State reported in 1979 LawSuit (All) 30, which is quoted below, and submitted that order granting, rejecting or cancelling the bail is an interlocutory order and it cannot be challenged by way of revision.

"5. What is an 'interlocutory order' within the meaning of Section 397 (2) of the Code, has been considered in detail by the Supreme Court in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana and Madhu Limaye Vs. State of Maharashtra referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties. The Supreme Court has held that though the expression 'interlocutory order' has not been used in Section 397 (2) of the Code in the restricted sense of an order which is converse to the term 'final order' as in that case it would almost have rendered nugatory the revisional powers of the Court of Session or the High Court conferred by Section 397 (1) of the Code, an order which does not decide any of the matters in dispute, or substantially decide any vital issue in the case against the accused touching the merits of the case or the rights of the parties, will be an 'interlocutory order.' It has been observed that it is not possible to make a catalogue of orders to demonsrate which would be purely 'interlocutory orders' within the meaning of S, 397 (2) of the Code and that whether an order is an 'interlocutory order' has to be adjudged keeping in view its effect on the questions or rights of the parties involved in the case. In our view, an order cancelling bail granted to an accused does not in any way affect the questions involved in the criminal case pending against the applicants or the rights of the parties in relation to any of the questions that may be involved in that case. 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) and is purely an 'interlocutory order'. It may be mentioned that in Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana (supra), while giving examples of what is an 'interlocutory order1 within the meaning of S, 397 (2) of the Code, the Supreme Court mentioned 'passing ord