- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1379 OF 2007 Krishnamilan Gajanan Shukla & Anr. ...Petitioners vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent AND AND AND CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1373 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1373 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.1373 OF 2007 Mrs.Hasina I. Parkar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi with Mr.B.P.Pandey for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.1379 of 2007 Mr.S.B.Kswani for the petitioners in Criminal Writ Petition No.1373 of 2007 Ms A.S.Pai A.P.P. for State CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : AUGUST 7,2008 : AUGUST 7,2008 : AUGUST 7,2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 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 - 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. I have also heard the learned counsel for the second Respondent. 3. There are two decisions of learned Single Judge of this Court which are considered by the learned Principal Judge in which a view has been taken that an order granting bail is not an interlocutory order. The first Judgment is in the case of Miss R. Shakuntala Vs. Roshanlal Agarwal [(1985 Cri.L.J. page 68) where the learned Single Judge of this Court held that the bail orders are interlocutory orders in large variety of the cases but every kind of bail order is not interlocutory. The other Judgment is of another learned Judge of this court (Coram : A.C.Agarwal,J.) in the case of Prashant Kumar Vs. Mancharlal Bhagatran Bhatia & Ors. [1988 (1) 31]. The view taken in the said case is that an order granting bail under section 437(1) or 439(1) of the said Code is a final order and therefore a revision application under section 397 of the said Code is maintainable against such order. Apart from these two decisions, a consistent view taken by the learned Single Judges of this Court is that the order granting bail is an interlocutory order. 4. In my view, the question involved is no longer res - 3 - 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 - 4 - maintainable against an order granting or refusing bail. 5. In the circumstances, the writ petitions must succeed and the impugned order is quashed and set aside to the extent to which it holds that the revision application St.No.3230 of 2007 and 3228 of 2007 are maintainable. The said revision applications are hereby dismissed as not maintainable. It is obvious that this decision will also govern the other criminal Revision Application where challenge is to the order granting bail. Rest of the impugned order is hereby confirmed. 6. The dismissal of the aforesaid Revision Applications will not preclude the Respondents from adopting appropriate proceedings. 7. The other Miscellaneous Applications which were tagged along with the aforesaid three Revision Applications shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from today. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE