Is Revision Under S.397 CrPC Maintainable Against Default Bail Order? Supreme Court To Consider

The Supreme Court is set to consider an important question of law of whether a revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, would be maintainable against an order granting default bail to the accused under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.

The Vacation Bench, comprising  Justices Sanjay Kumar and Augustine George Masih, framed the question as the Supreme Court never dealt with the issue.

The case emanated against the Delhi High Court decision wherein the High Court affirmed the Principal District & Sessions Judge's order rejecting the Magistrate's order granting default bail to the accused/petitioner.

The primary contention of the accused was that the revision was not maintainable against the order granting default bail to the accused. According to the accused, the order of grant of default is an interlocutory order against which no revision is maintainable under Section 397 Cr.P.C.

Whereas, the prosecution argued that the order granting default bail to the accused is not an interlocutory order but a final order against which a revision is maintainable.

The Delhi High Court upon relying on the various High Court's Judgment ruled in favor of the prosecution by stating that the grant of Statutory Bail cannot be considered as an Interlocutory Order. It is a final order releasing the Applicant on Bail as the investigation could not be completed and the final report could not be filed within the period of 60/90 days by the prosecution.

Following this, the Special Leave Petitioner (Criminal) was preferred by the accused/petitioner before the Supreme Court.

Upon hearing counsels appeared for the petitioner, the Court issued notice to the opposite party/State and directed the prosecution to not arrest the accused till further orders.

Recently, the Madras High Court on the aforesaid issue also held that the dismissal of a statutory bail application under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C., can be considered only as an intermediate order and not as an interlocutory order. Such an order can be challenged by way of filing a revision petition and the bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C., will not apply to such an order.

Mr. Shantwanu Singh, AOR Ms. Vijay Laxmi Rathi, Adv. appeared for the Petitioner/Accused.

Case Title: AMARJEET SINGH DHILLON VS. STATE NCT OF DELHI, SLP(Crl) No. 007983 - / 2024

Click here to read/download the order