In a notable decision clarifying the scope of revision petitions in criminal matters, the Bombay High Court has ruled that bail orders are not subject to challenge under a revision petition. The ruling came in the case of Raju Anna Chaughule v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application No. 678 of 2024), where the court quashed an earlier order by the Sessions Court in Nashik, which had cancelled the bail of the accused through a revision process. Justice Anil S. Kilor, delivering the verdict, underscored that such an action overstepped judicial authority and contradicted established procedural law.
Case Background and Context
The case began when Raju Anna Chaughule, the applicant, was granted bail on April 15, 2024, by a Magistrate. Shortly afterward, the prosecution sought to reverse this bail order, resulting in the Sessions Court revoking Chaughule’s bail on April 24, 2024, as part of a broader review of the custodial needs and remand procedure. Dissatisfied with this development, Chaughule, represented by Mr. Ganesh Gupta and his team from GG Legal Associates, moved the High Court, asserting that the Sessions Court lacked the jurisdiction to cancel his bail via a revision petition.
Legal Issues Addressed by the High Court
1. Challenge to Bail through Revision Petition
At the heart of the matter was whether a revision petition could be used to cancel a bail order granted by a Magistrate. Chaughule’s counsel argued that this was a misuse of the revisionary powers conferred under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). Citing the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Amar Nath v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2185), which restricts revision to final orders that are not interlocutory, the defence maintained that bail orders do not qualify for revision.
2. Definition of Interlocutory Orders in Bail Contexts
Justice Kilor closely examined whether the order granting bail could be categorized as an “interlocutory order.” He noted that interlocutory orders, which are typically procedural or temporary, do not affect the substantial rights of the accused. However, since bail significantly impacts personal liberty, it is not purely interlocutory and thus should not be subject to revision under Section 397(2) Cr.P.C.
3. Custodial Interrogation as Basis for Cancellation
Another argument presented by the prosecution focused on the need for custodial interrogation, an assertion previously supported in Chaughule’s anticipatory bail proceedings. The High Court clarified, however, that the necessity for custodial interrogation did not authorize a deviation from procedural norms. It emphasized that canceling bail through a revision petition required explicit jurisdiction, which was not present in this instance.
Key Observations by the Court
Justice Kilor’s observations were unequivocal in asserting that the Sessions Court’s cancellation of bail was beyond its jurisdictional purview. He stated, “The revisional court, without there being jurisdiction or any prayer for cancellation of bail, cancelled the bail granted to the applicant. Therefore, there was no doubt that the order is without jurisdiction and contrary to the law.”
The court further noted that without a direct prayer for bail cancellation in the revision petition, the Sessions Court lacked the authority to act upon it. This observation reinforced the importance of maintaining judicial boundaries in matters involving personal liberty.
The High Court ultimately quashed the April 24, 2024, order from the Sessions Court in Nashik to the extent that it canceled Chaughule’s bail. Justice Kilor allowed the criminal application, ruling that any further attempt to cancel the bail should be pursued through an appropriate application in the trial court. The judgment provided an avenue for the State to seek bail cancellation if desired, but through a separate application in a competent court rather than via revision.
