ORDER

The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2022, dated 26.02.2022, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagercoil, cancelling the statutory bail granted to the revision petitioner, in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022, dated 25.01.2022, in connection with the case registered in Cr.No.219 of 2021 of Aasaripallam Police Station, Kanyakumari District.

2. The revision petitioner is the accused in Cr.No.219 of 2021, on the file of the first respondent police for the offences under Sections 326, 307, 323, 364, 452, 294(b) and 506(ii) I.P.C. On the basis of the complaint lodged by the second respondent/defacto complainant, the above said F.I.R, came to be registered. The petitioner has filed a petition in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022 under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., seeking statutory bail, as charge sheet was not filed till the expiry of 90 days since the date of arrest and the learned Judicial Magistrate, vide order dated 25.01.2022, has granted statutory bail directing the petitioner to furnish two sureties for a likesum of Rs.5,000/-. Subsequently, the second respondent/defacto complainant has filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.531 of 2022 under Section 437(5) Cr.P.C., seeking orders to cancel the bail granted to the revision petitioner in Cr.M.P.No.147 of 2022, dated 25.01.2022. The learned Magistrate, after hearing the learned Counsel for the defacto complainant and the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the respondent police, has passed the impugned order dated 26.02.2022 allowing the petition and thereby cancelling the bail granted to the revision petitioner. Aggrieved by the cancellation of the bail, the accused has come forward with the present revision.

3. The learned Counsel for the second respondent/defacto complainant has raised a preliminary objection questioning the very maintainability of the revision, as the impugned order is only an interlocutory order and relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Abdul Nasser Madani Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2000 Crl.L.J.1258, wherein another judgment of this Court in Chitra Sankaranarayanan Vs. State reported in (1995)1 MLJ (Crl.) 216 was referred and wherein it is observed as follows:

“When the order of bail granted by the Judicial First Class Magistrate has been cancelled by the Sessions Judge, certainly, the accused party is entitled to move again before the Sessions Judge, who cancelled the bail, to grant the "bail under Section 439(1) of the Code. Therefore, the order of cancellation of the bail will not be a final order as any number of bail applications can be filed and in view of this reason, the order passed by the Sessions Judge is only an interlocutory order.”

4. The learned Judge of this Court in Abdul Nasser Madani's case, has only observed that the decision in Chitra Sankaranarayanan's case, can be made applicable and depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in Balaji Vs State, represented by the Inspector of Police, B1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai and another, in Crl.R.C.1356 of 2016, dated 06.09.2017, wherein the learned Judge of this Court has specifically held that the order cancelling bail being interlocutory order cannot be assailed by invoking revisional jurisdiction in view of the embargo as provided under Section 397(2) of the Code and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:

“4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as preliminary objection, raised an issue that the order impugned cancelling bail, granted to the petitioner, is an Interlocutory order. Therefore, by virtue of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, “the code”), no revision shall lie before this Court. Hence, if at all the petitioner is having grievance over the impugned order, he can work out his remedy in the manner known to law in an appropriate forum and not before this Court by filing revision case invoking revision