The court ruled that a revision against an interlocutory bail order is not maintainable under S.397(2) CrPC, highlighting the procedural significance of such orders.

1. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order dated 20-06-2007 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Bail Application No. 863/2007 admitting non - applicant Neeraj Jain for the benefit of S.439(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (henceforth 'CrPC') and thereby enlarging him on bail, the instant revision has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC.

2. The core facts, necessary for judging the correctness of the impugned order, are as under:
(2.1)Against Crime No. 7/2007 registered against the non - applicant, the Station House Officer, City Kotwali completed the investigation and charge - sheeted him in the jurisdictional criminal Court for offences under S.420, S.406, S.409, S.467, S.468, S.201, S.120B and S.471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth ' IPC ') on 15-01-2007. On being summoned, the non - applicant filed an application for grant of bail under S.439 CrPC, being Bail Application No. 863/2007 before the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur. The Additional Sessions Judge, by the impugned order dated 20-06-2007, granted the application and directed that the present non - applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur.
(2.2)Against the impugned order granting bail, the instant revision has been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh.

3. Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State / applicant would submit that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed a palpable legal error in granting the application and enlarging the non - applicant on bail admitting the privilege under S.439 CrPC. Elaborating his submission, he would further submit that the material collected by the prosecution clearly indicate the guilt of the accused / non - applicant and prima facie disclose commission of the above - charged offences and, therefore, the impugned order granting bail deserves to be set aside.

4. Though a notice was served upon the non - applicant, no one entered into appearance on his behalf to oppose the revision.

5. I have heard learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State / applicant and have perused the impugned order and the documents filed along with the revision.

6. The question that falls for consideration is whether the instant revision under S.397 read with S.401 CrPC preferred against the order granting bail under S.439(1) CrPC would, in view of the provision contained in S.397(2) CrPC, be maintainable?

7. In order to appreciate the issue, it would be apposite to notice S.397(2) CrPC, which provides as under:
'397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.'
 xxxx xxxx xxxx
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.'

8. An interlocutory order is one which is passed at some intermediate stage of a proceeding generally to advance the cause of justice for final determination of the rights between the parties.

9. An accused is usually granted bail in non - bailable offences basically enabling him to defend himself adequately and thereby assist the cause of justice. It is ordinarily at some intermediate stage, between the commencement of a trial and of a criminal trial for it is granted. Grant of bail does not determine the guilt or innocence of an accused. Thus, the grant or refusal of bail is essentially an interlocutory order.

10. In Central Bank of India v. Gokal Chand , AIR 1967 SC 799 , i