In a decisive nod to judicial precedent, the Bombay High Court declared that bail orders cannot be contested through revision proceedings, reinforcing a principle laid down by the Supreme Court.
Justice Anil Kilor emphasized that such orders are not subject to revision under Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), which limits revisional powers concerning interlocutory orders. The Court leaned on the landmark Supreme Court case Amar Nath v. State of Haryana, confirming that bail decisions do not fit the category of orders eligible for revision under this section.
The case centered on Raju Anna Chaughule, accused of cheating and arrested in Nashik. He was granted bail on April 15 by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, who noted that the charges did not carry severe penalties. The State challenged this decision, and the Sessions Court revoked Chaughule’s bail on April 24. The crux of the matter lay in the scope of the Sessions Court’s authority, as Chaughule argued the revocation went beyond what the State’s application sought.
Justice Kilor found merit in this argument, observing that the State’s revision plea had no explicit request to cancel the bail. Acknowledging that a separate application for cancellation existed, the High Court ruled that the Sessions Court had overstepped its bounds.
Ultimately, the High Court nullified the Sessions Court’s order that had canceled Chaughule’s bail. However, the ruling left room for the State to proceed with its bail cancellation efforts through the appropriate trial court channels.
The ruling serves as a robust reminder of the procedural boundaries surrounding bail orders, emphasizing that revision pleas cannot be wielded to undo bail decisions without explicit grounds or jurisdiction.
