DURGA PRASAD SAO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner assails the order passed by Mr. B.N. Das, Sessions Judge, Sundargarh, allowing an application in revision made by the State against the order passed by Mr. H.B. Das, Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Panposh, Rourkela, admitting the Petitioner to bail. Mr. Pradeep Mohanty, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, has submitted that an order relating to bail is an interlocutory one and therefore, no revision lies in view of the provisions contained in Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure {the Code, for short}. Reliance has been placed by him on the principles laid down in Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 2185. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, the learned Additional Government Advocate, has submitted that in view of the statutory bar for a revision against an interlocutory order, the revision was not competent. He has further submitted that it is open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail either before the learned Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate under Section 437(5) of the Code or before this Court or the Court of Session under Section 439(2) of the Code.

(2.) THE contention raised by Mr. Pradeep Mohanty must prevail and the concession made by the learned Additional Government Advocate is well -founded.

(3.) PETITION for Leave to Appeal (Criminal) Nos. 2120 -21 of 1982 were made in the Supreme Court against an order passed by this Court on August 10, 1982 refusing bail in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 509 of 1982 of this Court. These matters were heard with applications for bail and Criminal Miscellaneous Petition Nos. 3708 arid 3705 of 1982. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions by making the following observations: