Delhi District Court
C.B.I vs Sukhdev Singh on 16 August, 2023
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY GUPTA,
SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT (CBI)-03,
ROUSE AVENUE DISTRICT COURT, NEW DELHI
Crl.Revision No.05/2020
CNR No.DLCT11-000063-2020
C.B.I.
....Revisionist
Vs.
Sukhdev Singh, MD of PACL
S/o Sh. Raghubir Singh
A-7/14 DLF Ph.I,
Gurgaon, Haryana
Also at: Village & P.O.Jhallian Kalan,
District Ropar, Punjab
.... Respondent
Date of Institution: 21.01.2020
Arguments heard on: 05.08.2023
Order Pronounced on: 16.08.2023
ORDER
1. The present revision petition u/s 397 Cr.P.C has been filed by CBI/Prosecution against the respondent challenging the bail order dated 24.10.2019 passed by Ld. CMM in Case no.43/2019 titled as CBI Vs. Nirmal Singh Bhangoo & Ors.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the Preliminary Enquiry No. PE/BD1/2013/E/003 was registered in this case pursuant to the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.1 of 21 12.03.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 6572 of 2004 in the matter of M/s PGF Ltd. V/s Union of India & Ors. The case was registered u/s 120-B r/w Sec.420 IPC against M/s PGF Ltd and PACL Ltd. through its Managing Directors including the present revisionist.
3. Allegedly a fraud upon, approximately, 5.5 Crore persons was played by PGF Ltd. and PACL Ltd in which the respondent being the Managing Director of M/s PACL played a vital role in receiving the fraud amount. Allegedly an amount of around 45000/- Crores is stated to have been defrauded. Charge-sheet U/s 120 B r/w 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 of IPC r/w Sec. 4, 5 r/w Sec. 6 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 and substantive offences u/s 409, 411, 420 and 474 of IPC is also filed against company M/s PACL Ltd, of which the present respondent Sukhdev Singh, Managing Director is named as one of the accused.
4. It is reported that cognizance in the matter was taken by Ld. CMM on 07.04.2016.
5. Allegedly, the respondent Sukhdev Singh, the Managing Director of M/s PACL created shell companies, engaged in benami purchase of large tracts of land in the name of these shell companies by diverting the funds collected from its investors. Thus, the rotation/routing, siphoning of funds in Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.2 of 21 name of Benami Companies and family members has been alleged apart from other allegations. It is stated that despite the serious allegations, Ld. CMM erred in granting bail to the Respondent despite the bail of accused persons having been rejected by the Trail Court, Sessions Court, Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. Feeling aggrieved of the order passed by Ld. CMM, the present revision petition has been filed seeking setting aside the bail order dated 24.10.2019.
6. The present revision petition was received on 21.01.2020 and thereafter notice of the revision petition was issued to the respondent. Ld. Counsel for the respondent appeared and matter was listed for arguments.
7. Before proceeding further with the matter, it is deemed necessary to briefly discuss the relevant previous proceedings held in this matter. During pendency of the present petition, the submissions of both the sides were partly heard and during the course of arguments, Ld. Counsel for Respondent had raised his preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the present revision petition. During pendency of the case, on dated 27.11.2021, Ld. Sr. PP informed that the Prosecution intends to file an application seeking assignment of the present matter to other Court. The proceedings in regard to the transfer application which was filed by CBI before Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, RADC and the directions issued by Ld. Principal District & Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.3 of 21 Sessions Judge while disposing of the transfer application have been mentioned by Ld. Predecessor in the Order dated 04.07.2022 In order to recapitulate the previous proceedings, the specific paras of the Order passed by Ld. Predecessor on 04.07.2022 are reproduced here.
13. On 27.11.2021. Ld. SPP informed the Court about the intention of the Prosecution to move an application before Ld. Principal District & Session Judge for assigning the matter to other Court. Accordingly, the matter was posted for 29.01.2022 with following Order:
"Sh. Chander Shekhar, Sr. PP submits that Prosecution is intending to move an application before ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, RADC for transfer of the present revision to the Court of Sh. Sanjeev Aggarwal, Ld. Spl. Judge (PC Act) CBI.
As prayed, put up on 29.01.2022."
14. However, the Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge vide order dated 25.05.2022 was pleased to reject the request for transfer. A denovo plea challenging the jurisdiction was then raised. The Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge hence was please to pass following directions vide order dated 25.05.2022:
"...................................................... ......................................................... Both the parties prayed that let the matter i.e. the revision petition may be heard by the same court. But before proceeding further in the matter, the court may first decide the issue regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in the changed circumstances.Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.4 of 21
Accordingly, as requested by both the parties, the revision petition shall remain in the same court in which it is pending, however, the court before proceeding further in the matter, may first heard and decide the issue regarding the jurisdiction to entertain the revision petition in the changed circusmtances.
With these observations, the application of CBI stands disposed off.
............................................................... .............................................................."
15 & 16. The file was received back on 07.06.2022 and during the course of arguments on the plea of jurisdiction, the respondent stated no objection, however the petitioner CBI through prosecution raised the doubt qua this court having the jurisdiction, which aspect was sought to be clarified. After noting the proceedings, the non-co-operation, avoidance and rather nonchalant conduct which has been cause of severe delay, cost of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed and reasons were noted in detail.
19. Consequent to order dated 25.05.2022 of ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, the prosecution was well aware about the doubt it had raised about the jurisdiction of this Court, its unpreparedness and unwillingness to come forward and make a clear statement of its own stand is unexplainable as sufficient time was at the disposal of the prosecution to prepare.
20. Having regard to the aforesaid, no party can be allowed to take advantage and/or blow hot and cold at the same time by playing around the proceedings of the court.
21. In view of the above, as the cost is not being deposited, it appears that prosecution has no real intention to proceed with matter as the Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.5 of 21 deposit is the condition precedent. The proceedings hence cannot continue and are "non-est".
22. File be consigned to record room and shall be revived only after the payment of cost.
8. The perusal of the above referred proceedings previously held in this matter shows that the prosecution had raised their doubt about the jurisdiction of this Court in entertaining the present revision petition, thus, Ld. Predecessor had directed the Prosecution to make their stand clear about the same, however, they were not coming forth with their clear stand and furthermore the prosecution had not deposited the cost of Rs. 5,000/- thus, vide Order dated 04.07.2022, the present proceedings were directed to be discontinued and simultaneously, it was directed that the proceedings in the present revision petition be revived only after deposit of aforesaid cost. The cost has been deposited by the CBI on 17.03.2023 and therefore, the proceedings in the present petition have been revived.
9. It is also clear from the above referred paras that Ld. Principal District & Sessions Judge, RADC has directed to decide the issue of jurisdiction before proceeding further in view of the changed circumstances. Thus, in order to ascertain the stand of Prosecution regarding the jurisdiction of this Court qua the present matter, again clarifications were sought from the Ld. Sr. PP on this aspect. In this regard, Ld. Sr. PP made his Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.6 of 21 written submissions and submitted that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the present revision petition. In this regard, separate statement of Ld. Counsel for Respondent was recorded and Ld. Counsel also submitted that he has no objection to the jurisdiction of this Court qua the present revision petition. Keeping in view of the submissions made by both the sides, this Court further proceeded with the matter to hear and dispose of the preliminary objection raised by Ld. Counsel for Respondent regarding maintainability of the present revision petition.
10. Perusal of the record further shows that the order for grant of regular bail to respondent has been assailed in the present petition and it appears that the said order falls within the category of interlocutory orders. Thus, keeping in view of the provisions of Section 397 (2) CrPC, the arguments on the point of maintainability of present revision petition have been heard from Ld. Sr. PP as well as Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
11. Ld. Sr. PP submitted that the application for regular bail itself is a separate proceeding which is decided on its merit after hearing the objection of the Prosecution. He submits that the moment order is passed on the regular bail application, it affects the right of the accused either to remain in Jail or to be released on bail. He further submits that passing of any Order on the objection of the Prosecution would result in Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.7 of 21 culminating the proceeding of the bail and it is immaterial if any subsequent proceedings started in the matter of bail on behalf of accused if earlier bail is rejected. The factum of filing subsequent or many applications would not change the nature of the proceedings culminated once. Even the cancellation of bail does not re-initiate the earlier culminated proceedings whereby the bail was granted. He submits that even modifications of the conditions in the bail order does not ipso- facto make the order for grant of bail temporary or inconclusive as it does not revisit or reconsider the bail granted to him but it is only limited to the modifications of certain conditions in the bail order. The proceedings of bail which have been terminated by the order are conclusive proceedings, hence, order passed on the bail application is a final order as same affects the right of the accused and therefore, same is assailable U/s 397 CrPC and therefore the present revision petition is maintainable on the grounds mentioned in the petition. In support of his arguments Ld. Sr. PP has relied upon the Judgments of Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 37/SH of 2013 dated 13.05.2013 i.e. Officer In-charge Ampati Police Station & Ors. Vs. Prohlad Hajong & Ors and of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court titled as State of Gujarat Vs. Kanak Sinkh, Mohan Sinh Mangrola and also of Hon'ble Meghalaya High Court titled as State of Meghalaya Vs. Mohd. Nurul Islam in Criminal Revision Petition 08/2015 dated 11.09.2015.
Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.8 of 2112. Ld. Counsel for Respondent submitted that the impugned order falls within the category of interlocutory orders and therefore U/s 397 (2) CrPC, the present revision petition is not maintainable. Ld. Counsel for Respondent has relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble High Court.
(i) Honnaiah T.H Vs. State of Karntaka & Ors. (Crl. Appeal No.1147 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No.2021 of 2022).
(ii) Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI (Crl. Appeal No.1137 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503 of 2016)
(iii) Aengalesh Vs. Harshila (Crl. RC (MD) NO.6 of 2023), Crl.M.P. (MD) No.75 of 2023 and
(iv) Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Lovepreet & Anr (115 CRR No.364 of 2022 (O&M).
13. Arguments from both the sides have been heard and record of the case has been perused. Ld. Counsel has submitted that the present revision petition is not maintainable as it has been filed against interlocutory order. In support of his contentions Ld. Counsel for Respondent has filed the above referred judgments. In the case titled as Honnaiah T.H. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 1147 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP (Crl) No. 2021 of 2022), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
12. There would be a serious miscarrage of justice in the course of criminal trial if the statement Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.9 of 21 were not to be marked as an exhibit since that forms the basis of the registration of the FIR.
The order of the trial judge cannot in these circumstances be treated as merely procedural or of an interlocutory in nature since it has the potential to affect the substantive course of the prosecution. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be exercised where the interest of public justice requires interference for correction of manifest illegality or the prevention of gross miscarriage of justice. A court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction against a final order of acquittal or conviction, or an intermediate order not being interlocutory in nature. In the decision in Amar Nath v State of Haryana, this Court explained the meaning of the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) CrPC. This Court held that the expression "interlocutory order" denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch upon the important rights or liabilities of parties. Hence, any order which substantially affects the right of the parties cannot be said to be an "interlocutory order". Speaking for a two-Judge Bench, Justice Murtaza Fazal Ali observed:
"6. [...] It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.10 of 21 Code. Thus, for instance, 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 would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
14. In the case titled as Girish Kumar Suneja Vs. CBI (Crl. Appeal No.1137 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9503 of 2016), Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
16. While the text of sub-section (1) of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C. appears to confer very wide powers on the court in the exercise of its revision jurisdiction, this power is equally severely curtailed by sub-section (2) thereof.
There is a complete prohibition in a court exercising its revision jurisdiction in respect of interlocutory orders. Therefore, what is the nature of orders in respect of which a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction?
17. There are three categories of orders that a court can pass - final, intermediate and interlocutory. There is no doubt that in respect of a final order, a court can exercise its revision jurisdiction - that is in respect of a final order of acquittal or conviction. There is equally no doubt that in respect of an interlocutory order, the court cannot exercise its revision jurisdiction. As far as an intermediate order is concerned, the court Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.11 of 21 can exercise its revision jurisdiction since it is not an interlocutory order.
15. In the case titled as Aengalesh Vs. Harshila (Crl. RC (MD) NO.6 of 2023), Crl.M.P. (MD) No.75 of 2023, Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:-
4. The learned Judge of this Court in Abdul Nasser Madani's case has only observed the decision Chira Sankaranarayanan's case, can be made applicable and depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is necessary to refer the decision of this Court in Balaji Vs State, represented by the Inspector of Police, B1, North Beach Police Station, Chennai and another, in Crl.R. C1356 of 2016, dated 06.09.2017, wherein the learned Judge of this Court has specifically held that the order cancelling bail being interlocutory order cannot be assailed by invoking revisional jurisdiction in view of the embargo as provided under section 397 (2) of the Code and the relevant portions are extracted hereunder:-
"4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, as preliminary objection, raised an issue that the order impugned cancelling bail, granted to the petitioner, is an Interlocutory order. Therefore, by virtue of Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, "the Code"), no revision shall lie before this Court. Hence, if at all the petitioner is having grievance over the impugned order; he can work out his remedy in the manner known to law in an appropriate forum and not before this Court by filing revision case invoking revisional power of this Court under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code.Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.12 of 21
5. In MayaVenkatesan Vs. State in Crl. R.C. No. 1016 to 1023 of 2007, dated 25.07.2007, another learned Judge of this Court, by relying on the decision of this Court reported in 1980 MLJ 375 (Somaram Vs. Jewantharaj Lunia and another), had held that the order of cancellation of bail is an interlocutory order and no revision would lie against such order and that he was in entire agreement with the proposition laid down in the above Somaram's case and dismissed the Criminal Revision both on merits as well as on the ground of maintainability.
6. Considering the above and also the fact that the impugned order cancelling the bail being an interlocutory order and in view of the specific bar under Section 397 (2) Cr.P.C., this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Criminal Revision is legally not maintainable."
16. In the case titled Lakhwinder Singh Vs. Lovepreet & Anr (115 CRR No.364 of 2022 (O&M), Hon'ble High Court has observed as under:-
On a specific query by the Court regarding maintainability, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court in Bodh Raj Vs. State of Haryana 1993 (3) RCR (Criminal) 720 to submit that the order passed granting bail is not an interlocutory order and a revision petition against the same is maintainable. However, interpreting the provisions of sub section (2) of Section 397 of the Code, Superme Court in Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Anrs. (1997) 4 SCC 137 has held as under:-
"6. [...] It seems to us that the term "interlocutory order" in Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code has been used in a restricted sense Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.13 of 21 and not in any broad or artistic sense. It merely denotes orders of a purely interim or temporary nature which do not decide or touch the important rights or the liabilities of the parties. Any order which substantially affects the right of the accused, or decides certain rights of the parties cannot be said to be an interlocutory order so as to bar a revision to the High Court against that order, because that would be against the very object which formed the basis for insertion of this particular provision in Section 397 of the 1973 Code. Thus, for instance, 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 would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code. But orders which are matters of moment and which affect or adjudicate the rights of the accused or a particular aspect of the trial cannot be said to be interlocutory order so as to be outside the purview of the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court."
17. Thus, it is clear from the aforesaid discussions that the in most of the above cited case laws the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Amar Nath & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors has been discussed/relied.
18. It is well settled law that the no revision petition is maintainable against an interlocutory order and in the cases of Janapala Krishna v. State of Andhra Pradesh (Telangana And Andhra Pradesh) 2015(3) ALT (Crl.) 476 : 2015(1) Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.14 of 21 Andh LD (Criminal) 409 and Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan) (Jaipur Bench) 2017(4) Cri. L.R. 1702 : 2017(3) RajCriC 1165, it has been specifically held that the order passed on the application for cancellation of bail is an interlocutory order and the order passed on cancellation of bail cannot be assailed in a revision petition. While giving this observation, Hon'ble High Courts have relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant paras of the judgment passed in the cases of Janapala Krishna and Mohan Lal (supra) read as under:-
(case of Janapala Krishna)
2. It is maintained as a revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before this Court, no doubt, under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., the powers of revision before the High Court are in addition to Section 397 of Cr.P.C. also under Section 401 of Cr.P.C., of exercising in deciding the revision appeal powers also; leave about the other powers of the High Court either under Section 483 of Cr.P.C.
in entertaining the revision under supervisory jurisdiction or the inherent power within the three riders specified in Section 482 of Cr.P.C. which inheres in the Court that also saved by the Code. In fact, Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. bars maintainability of revision against the orders which are interlocutory in nature. In the expression of the three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Madhulimaye v. The State of Maharashtra, AIR (1978) SC page 47 : 1977 (4) SCC-551 referring to the earlier expression of the two Judges Bench in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, (1977) 4 SCC 137 it was categorically hold that against the order granting or refusing or cancelling bail which are interlocutory in nature, revision is not maintainable. Further, the Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.15 of 21 expression of the Apex Court in Mohit @ Sonu v. State of U.P., (2013) 7 SCC 789 and the expression of the three Judges of the Apex Court in Narendra K. Amin v. State of Gujarat, (2008) 13 SCC 584 held that though superior Courts are entertaining the matters impugning against grant or refusal or cancellation of bail as appeals, it is virtually under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for cancellation or otherwise under Section 482 Cr.P.C. In the expression of three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Talab Haji Hussain v. Madhukar Purshottam Mondekar and Anr., (1958) SCR 1226, it was observed that against the order granting bail in a bailable offence even that can be cancelled , if at all to impugn, it can only be under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. (old) equivalent to Section 482 Cr.P.C. (new). The same was approved in the other five Judges Bench expression of the Apex Court in Ratilal Bhanji v. Asstt Collector of Customs, AIR 1967 SC 1637: 1967 Cri.L.J. 1576. Bombay holding that against the order cancelling the bail even filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, when on factual matrix; the Supreme Court under Article 136 cannot easily interfere and even otherwise by invoking inherent power that is there to the High Court under Section 561-A Cr.P.C. it was observed to renew by filing fresh application for bail that is not a bar from cancellation of earlier bail order. In fact, a detailed order is passed by this Court regarding remedy is to file application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and not by revision against the cancellation of bail order, vide order dated 15.09.2014 in Crl.R.C. No.1506 of 2014. Needless to say, the remedy is to move afresh bail application, or the other remedy if at all to impugn the cancellation order of the bail is only under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for interference within the inherent power of the High Court and not to impugn by maintaining the revision.
Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.16 of 21(Case of Mohan Lal)
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 Andhra 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.
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.
19. In the case Kaushikbhai Balubhai Bavarva v. State of Gujarat, (Gujarat) : 2017(352) ELT 275, it has been observed as under:-
9. It has been observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v.
State of Gujarat, (1988) 2 SCC 271, thus :
"It cannot be doubted that the grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order. There is no finality to such an order for an Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.17 of 21 application for bail can always be renewed from time to time..... There is no finality attached to an order of a Designated Court granting or refusing bail. Such application for bail can always be renewed from time to time. That being so, the contention advanced on behalf of the Government that the impugned orders refusing to grant bail were not interlocutory and therefore appealable cannot be accepted."
10. Relying on the above decision, the Bombay High Court in the case of Mohan alias Mannu Basantani v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Mah. L.R. 1556 ruled as follows:
"The order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order and in view of sub-section (2) of Section 397 the revisional powers could not be exercised in respect of such interlocutory order ."
11. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in the case of The State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo Raoji and Others, (1991) 1 Mah. L.R. 379, held that orders of bail are essentially interlocutory orders and the revision is barred under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. The above decisions support the contentions that order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory one and the reason is that the application for grant of bail can be renewed from time to time.
12. Thus, in the first instance, there was a inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of the Sessions Court in entertaining the criminal revision application."
20. In the case of Surendra Kuwar Singh v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(Lucknow Bench) : 2016(94) ACrC 314, it has been held as under:-
Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.18 of 2113. In the case of Surya Narain and others v.
State of U.P. and others (Supra), Hon'ble Single Judge of this High Court has held that when an order has been passed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. cancelling the bail order passed under Section 437 of Cr.P.C., the accused would have two courses open. Either he may move petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the validity of the cancellation order or to move application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court for granting bail. In this Case, Hon'ble Single Judge of this High Court has also held that cancellation order of bail is an interlocutory order and revision under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. does not lie.
14. In view of above, two pronouncements of this High Court, it is apparent that cancellation of bail is an interlocutory order.
15. In the case of Sami Ullaha v.
Superintendent, Narcotic Central Bureau (Supra), Hon'ble Apex Court has allowed the appeal and has allowed revision filed before High Court by setting aside impugned order of said revision, whereby, bail has been cancelled but perusal of this judgment shows that in this case, Hon'ble Apex Court has not specifically Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.19 of 21 considered this issue as to whether cancellation order of bail is an interlocutory order.
16. In view of above case laws, if impugned bail cancellation order is an interlocutory order and revision is barred by Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., even then petition can be entertained under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
21. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, it is respectfully observed that the case laws cited by the Ld. Sr. PP for revisionist/CBI are not applicable to the present case. It is most respectfully observed that in the case of Amarnath (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the orders passed on bail are interlocutory orders and the relevant para of the said judgment reads as under:-
"...Thus, for instance, 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 would lie under Section 397(2) of the 1973 Code."
22. Also in the case of Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat, (SC) 1988 CriLJ 938, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.20 of 21"...It cannot be doubted that the grant or refusal of a bail application is essentially an interlocutory order. There is no finality to such an order for an application for bail can always be renewed from time to time."
23. Thus, in view of the settled legal position, the present revision petition which is filed against the order for grant of bail is barred u/s 397 (2) Cr.P.C as the order of grant of bail amounts to an interlocutory order. Hence, the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, revision petition is hereby dismissed.
24. TCR, if any be sent to the Court concerned.
25. Revision file be consigned to record room.
Digitally signedAJAY by AJAY GUPTA Date:
GUPTA 2023.08.16 16:14:18 +0530 (Ajay Gupta) Special Judge (PC Act) CBI-03, RADC/New Delhi/16.08.2023 Crl. Rev.No.05/2020 Page No.21 of 21