ORDER
J.A. Patil, J.
1. The respondent was involved in C.R. No. 32 of 98 which was registered against him by the Shani Peth Police Station, Jalgaon for the offence punishable under section 407 and 420 of I.P.C. The respondent then moved an application under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon by his order dated 13-8-1998 allowed that application and directed that in the event of his arrest, in connection with C.R. No. 32 of 98, the respondent be released on his furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 3,000/- with a surety in the like amount. This order is challenged by the petitioner State in this revision application filed under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. Heard Shri Quazi, learned A.P.P. for the petitioner State and Shri Raghuwanshi, learned Advocate for the respondent. Shri Raghuwanshi has in the first instance, raised a basic objection to the maintainability of the revision application. According to him, no revision application lies against an order of grant of bail. Shri Raghuwanshi further contended that the proper remedy for the petitioner State would be to move an application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail. Shri Quazi, the learned A.P.P on the other hand, submitted that the revision application is very much maintainable in view of the provisions of section 397 of Code of Criminal Procedure since the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order is challenged.
3. It is material to note that under sub-section (2) of section 397 of the Code, powers of revision cannot be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or in other proceedings. According to Shri Raghuwanshi, the impugned order is of interlocutory nature and as such, the bar of section 397(2) becomes operative. In support of his submission, Shri Raghuwanshi has relied upon several decisions. The first of which is Dhola v. State, 1975 Cri.L.J. 1274 wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the order regarding grant or refusal of bail application is essentially an interlocutory order as it enlarges the accused in non-bailable cases to defend himself adequately and thereby assist the cause of justice. It was further observed that such an order is based on some intermediate stage between commencement and end of criminal cases and it does not determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. It was, therefore, held that the revision does not lie against such an order.
4. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court in Nilu v. State, 1983 Cri.L.J. 1590. Andhra Pradesh High Court also held in T.V. Hariprasad v. State of A.P., 1977 Cri.L.J. 471 that orders granting bail or refusing bail or, cancelling bail are interlocutory and hence not revisable.
5. Shri Raghuwanshi also cited before me two decisions of our own High Court. The first is Mohan v. State of Maharashtra, 1989 Mh.L.J. 613 wherein Tated, J., held that the order granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order and no revision is tenable against such order in view of section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo, 1991(1) Mah.L.R. 379 Aggarwal, J., held that the orders of bail are essentially interlocutory orders and that, revisions are barred under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
6. As against these decisions given by different High Courts including our own High Court, Shri Quazi could not cite any authority to show that the order granting anticipatory bail is revisable under section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of Shri Quazi that the revision application is maintainable. Consequently, the objection taken by Shri Raghuwanshi to the maintainability of the present revision application will have to be upheld and the revision application will have to be rejected in limine. This being the position, it is not necessary for me to go into the question of propriety, legality and correctness of the impugned order.
7. In the result revision application is rejected.
8. Revision dismissed.