NIJAM MOHIDEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the order passed by me in Crl. M. P. No. 887 of 1959, refusing bail to the petitioners. The office has put up a note pointing out that such an application does not lie. This matter has been posted for orders on the note put up by the office. The question is whether such an application lies.

(2.) THIS is presented under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution. Under Article 134 (1) an appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceedings of a High Court. The question is whether an order passed in the above criminal miscellaneous petition is a final order. The explanation to Article 132 states -that the expression "final order" includes an order deciding an issue which if decided in favour of the appellant would be sufficient for the final disposal of the case. An order on a bail application, even if it Is in favour of the petitioners, would certainly not decide the case in their favour, that is to say, will not result in an acquittal. It is well known that an order releasing the accused on bail can be cancelled subsequently. Equally an order refusing bail at one stage may also be modified subsequently by an order directing the petitioners to be released on bail. The principle laid down in Krishna v. State and Dhanalakshmi Ammal v. I. T. Officer A. I. R. 1958 Mad 151, will apply with equal force to an order On a bail petition as it cannot be said to be a final order inasmuch as it does not decide the issue between the parties and as it does not result either in conviction or acquittal of the petitioners, This not being a final order, Article 134 (1) (c) will not apply, Therefore this petition is incompetent and is rejected.