KRISHNAMILAN GAJANAN SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the parties. These petitions take an exception to that part of the Judgment and Order dated 11th July 2007 passed by the learned Principal Judge of the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court by which the learned Judge has held that an order of granting bail is not interlocutory order and therefore a Revision Application preferred under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against such order were maintainable. When these petitions came up before this court on 30th July 2007, this court observed that only question to be decided is whether an order of grant of bail is an interlocutory order or not.

(2.) THE learned senior counsel for the applicants has taken me through the various decisions of this court and Apex Court and has submitted that the consistent view in catena of decisions is that an order granting bail is an interlocutory order have also heard the learned counsel for the second Respondent.

(3.) IN my view, the question involved is no longer res integra. In the decision of the Apex Court in case of Amar Nath Vs. State of Haryana (1977 4 S.C.C. page 137), the Apex Court has considered the term 'interlocutory order. In paragraph 6 of the said decision, the Apex Court has held the orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding may no doubt amount to interlocutory orders against which no revision will lie. The same view has been taken by the Apex Court in case of Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon and others Vs. State of Gujrat (AIR 1988 S.C. 922). In fact, there is a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohd. vs. State of Maharashtra (1994 Mh.L.J. page 688) by which a Division Bench (Coram : A.C. Agarwal and I.G. Shah, JJ.) held that an order granting bail or refusing bail is an interlocutory order against which no revision will lie. It is obvious that the aforesaid two decisions of the learned Single Judge in case of R. Shakuntala (supra) and Prashant (supra) cannot be read as binding precedents. The learned Principal Judge relied upon a decision of another learned Single Judge of this Court in case of Ramona Chandiramani Vs. Arunoday Mills Ltd. & Others [2005 (2) Bombay Cases Reporter (Cri) page 821). Perusal of the said Judgment shows that the learned Judge has not at all decided the issue involved regarding maintainability of a revision application against the order granting or refusing bail. Thus, the revision application under section 397 of the said Code is not maintainable against an order granting or refusing bail.