Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1860 (RAJ)

Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2017-08-18

PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : Pankaj Bhandari, J. Petitioners have preferred this revision petition aggrieved by order dated 24.04.2017 passed by Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu whereby the Court below allowed the application filed by the complainant under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 and cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners. 2. A preliminary objection is raised by the counsel for the complainant that the order under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 is an interlocutory order and revision is not maintainable. 3. Counsel for the complainant has placed reliance on "Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr." 1977 4 SCC 137 and "Nilu alias Prasanta Kumar Patjoshi and others v. State" 1983 SCC Online Ori. 149. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that the order passed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 is not an interlocutory order as it finally determines the rights of the parties. 5. Counsel for the petitioners has also placed reliance on the same judgment "Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr." (supra). Reliance has also been placed on "Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State(Delhi Administration)" (1978) 1 SCC 118 , "Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT Delhi and Anr." (2001) 4 SCC 280 , "Puran v. Rambilas and Anr." (2001) 6 SCC 338 and "Ram Kishan Meena v. State of Rajasthan" in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.81/2017 decided by Rajasthan High Court on 27.02.2017. 6. I have considered the contentions. 7. Present is a case where Magistrate Court granted bail for offence under Section 467 I.P.C. Offence under Section 467 I.P.C. is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine. As per Sub-clause 1 of Section 437, a Magistrate is not empowered to release the accused if there appears reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The Sessions Court, therefore, allowed the application filed by the complainant and cancelled bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 of the petitioners. 8. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the provisions of section 437 and 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973. 9. The Apex Court in "Amar Nath and Ors. The Sessions Court, therefore, allowed the application filed by the complainant and cancelled bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973 of the petitioners. 8. I have considered the contentions and have gone through the provisions of section 437 and 439 (2) Cr.P.C., 1973. 9. The Apex Court in "Amar Nath and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr." (supra) case held that orders summoning witnesses, adjourning cases, passing orders for bail, calling for reports and such other steps in aid of the pending proceeding, amounts to interlocutory orders against which no revision would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. 10. The Orissa High Court in "Nilu alias Prasanta Kumar Patjoshi and others v. State" (supra) while referring to the judgment of "Thakur Harivrasad v. State of Andra Pradesh" 1977 Cr.L.J. 471 held that the impugned order of the Sessions Judge cancelling bail is an interlocutory order as it does not determines the guilt or innocence of the accused-petitioners and does not terminate the trial of the petitioners on the merits of the case. The Court also held that revision does not lie against such an order. 11. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners in "Gurcharan Singh and Ors. v. State (Delhi Administration)" (supra) has no applicability to the case as it merely deals with the provisions of the principles underlying Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973 In the same judgment, the Court has observed that if an accused is brought before Court of a Magistrate with the allegation against him of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the Magistrate has no option in the matter but to refuse bail. 12. In "Chandra Pal Singh Choudhary & Ors. v. Vijit Singh & Anr.", the Court held that bail once granted cannot be cancelled merely on ground of converting offence from Section 304-A to that under Section 304 I.P.C. The judgments relied upon by counsel for petitioners do not have any applicability to the facts of this case as in the present case, Magistrate acted beyond his jurisdiction in granting bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C., 1973. 13. The impugned order cancelling bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 is an interlocutory order, hence, the revision petition is not maintainable. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of. 14. 13. The impugned order cancelling bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., 1973 is an interlocutory order, hence, the revision petition is not maintainable. The revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Stay application also stands disposed of. 14. The application filed by the complainant-respondent is allowed and the revision petition is held to be not maintainable.