In the case of Amar Nath and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, the Apex Court has clearly held that "passing order for bail" is an interlocutory order and, therefore, there can hardly be any controversy in this regard. The impugned order dated 13-8-1998 is undoubtedly an order of grant of bail and, therefore, falls within the ambit and category of interlocutory order and in view of bar created by Section 397(2) of the Code, the High Court is precluded from exercising its revisional powers in this regard, which ultimately results in rendering revision against such interlocutory order not maintainable. I must, therefore, uphold the preliminary objection raised by Shri Pendsey, learned Counsel for the non-applicants and further hold that all the above referred four revisions filed by the State as well as complainant are not maintainable against the impugned order of grant of bail, dated 13-8-1998. {Para 11}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)
D.D. SINHA, J.
The State Of Maharashtra Vs. Sanjay S/O Moreshwar Damle & Ors.,
Cri. Rev. Appln. No. 182 of 1998
4th March, 1999
Citation: 1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1127
Print Page