JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1. Heard the parties. 2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the order dated 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner consequent upon the petitioner- who is an accused in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 failed to comply with the direction of the trial court to remain physically present before it and directed to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner/accused was directed to appear physically before the learned Judicial Magistrate on 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; for the purpose of supply of police paper and allied purposes. The petitioner did not remain physically present before the Judicial Magistrate on 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; but got filed a petition under Section 317 Cr.P.C, through his advocate. The said prayer was not accepted by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class and the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; by filing Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022. 4. The learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 observed that the order by which the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled was an interlocutory order. Hence, Criminal Revision will not lie against such order and did not interfere with the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. 4. The learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 observed that the order by which the bail granted to the petitioner was cancelled was an interlocutory order. Hence, Criminal Revision will not lie against such order and did not interfere with the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the orders dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the said order dated 15.07.2022 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, have been passed mechanically by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the said orders are harassing and oppressive against the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that therefore the same be quashed and set aside. 6. Learned P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for quashing the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the order dated 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner and submits that undisputedly the said order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur dated 15.07.2022 is an interlocutory order and as in view of Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. the power of revision shall not be exercise in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding; hence the learned Sessions Judge has rightly not exercised the power of revision in respect of such order. It is then submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022. 7. It is then submitted that there is no illegality in the order dated 29.11.2022 passed by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022. 7. So far as the order dated 15.07.2022 passed in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 is concerned, learned P.P. appearing for the State submits that it is a settled principle of law that the bail granted to the accused do not confer unfettered right to the accused to not appear before the court any further rather in the bail bond itself the petitioner and the sureties undertake that the accused of the case shall remain present in court on each of such future date to which the case would be fixed by the court. It is then submitted that, when the court directs an accused to remain physically present on a specific date; the accused of the case do not have any choice but to appear before the trial court. If an accused is unable to remain present in the court on the date fixed because of his one or other problem; he has the choice of remaining in jail. In case the accused opts to remain in jail; it will be the duty of the jail authority to ensure his presence before the court as and when directed by the court. It is then submitted that here, in this case, the petitioner wants to have the cake and eat it too as though he wants to remain on bail but wants the liberty not to appear before the court as per his sweet will; which is not permissible in law. As in spite of specific direction of the learned Judicial Magistrate to remain physically present before it on a specific date; the petitioner still did not obey his order. So, certainly the petitioner has violated the conditions of the bail bond furnished by him in which he undertook to remain present in the court on each date to which the case would be fixed and the violation is unpardonable; when in spite of specific direction of the court, without any plausible reason the petitioner has not remained present in court. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in cancelling the bail of the petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that no illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate in cancelling the bail of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the order dated 15.07.2022 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021. Hence, it is submitted that this Cr.M.P. being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that when an accused of a criminal case is released on bail; has no choice but to appear before the court which grants him bail. After an accused is granted bail by the order of the court, the accused furnishes a bail bond and in the bail bond the accused undertakes that he will appear before the court on each of the dates to which the case would be fixed in future. So, ordinarily the accused in expected to remain present in court on each of the dates to which the case is fixed. Of course, there is provision inter-alia in Section 317 of the Cr.P.C. where the court can dispensed with the personal attendance of the accused and proceed with such enquiry or trial in absence of the accused if he is represented by his pleader. But when the accused who is on bail is directed specifically to remain present in a particular day by the court then the accused has to appear in the court; because if the accused is unable to present himself before the court; when the date of the case is fixed, he has the choice to remain in judicial custody and face the trial being in judicial custody and to ensure his production before the trial court will be the responsibility of the jail authority. Under such circumstances, as in spite of specific direction of the trial court as the petitioner who was the accused of G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021; did not appear before the Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur, this Court do no find any illegality in the said order dated 15.07.2022; whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur; has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner. 9. 9. So far as the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur is concerned, undisputedly the order cancelling the bail granted to an accused is an interlocutory order and in view of specific bar for exercising the power of revision in respect of interlocutory orders as envisaged in Section 397 (2) of the Cr.P.C. this Court do not find any illegality in the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by the Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur in not interfering with the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur passed on 15.07.2022 when it had no jurisdiction to exercise the power of revision in respect of an interlocutory order. Hence, this Court do no find any illegality in the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur. 10. Accordingly, prayer to quash the order dated 29.11.2022 passed in Criminal Revision No. 244 of 2022 by Sessions Judge, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur and also the order dated 15.07.2022 in G.R. Case No. 1902 of 2021 arising out of Mango P.S. Case No. 107 of 2021 whereby the learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class, Jamshedpur has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner, being without any merit is rejected. 11. Accordingly, this Cr. M.P. being without any merit, is dismissed.