The Supreme Court of India is set to deliberate on a pivotal legal issue concerning the maintainability of revision petitions under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) against default bail orders. This examination holds significant implications for the procedural and substantive aspects of criminal law in India, especially in the context of bail jurisprudence.
Background and Legal Framework
Section 397 of the CrPC provides the revisional jurisdiction of higher courts to examine the correctness, legality, or propriety of any finding, sentence, or order, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior court. However, sub-section (2) of Section 397 explicitly bars revisions against interlocutory orders, which are considered procedural steps that do not decide the rights of parties conclusively.
Default bail, also known as statutory bail, is granted under Section 167(2) of the CrPC when the investigating agency fails to complete its investigation within the prescribed period. Historically, courts have viewed orders granting or refusing bail as interlocutory in nature, thereby barring revisions under Section 397(2).
Previous Judgments and Legal Interpretations
Several High Courts, including the Bombay High Court, have ruled that bail orders are interlocutory and thus not subject to revision under Section 397. For instance, in Mohan alias Mannu Basantani v. State of Maharashtra, the court ruled that bail orders are inherently interlocutory because they can be renewed or modified over time【52†source】.
The Supreme Court has also clarified that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC can be invoked in cases of final orders or intermediate orders that are not interlocutory. An intermediate order, as described by the court, affects the rights of the parties and can be revisited under this section. The Court’s observations in State of Gujarat v. Afroz Mohammed Hasanfatta underscore that revisions cannot be applied to purely interlocutory orders【51†source】【55†source】.
Exceptional Circumstances and Inherent Powers
Despite the bar under Section 397(2), the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC allow for intervention in cases of manifest illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. The Supreme Court in Krishnan and Anr. v. Krishnaveni and Anr. affirmed that inherent powers could be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any court or to secure the ends of justice, even when a revision under Section 397 is not maintainable【54†source】.
Current Deliberations and Implications
The Supreme Court’s current deliberation will address whether default bail orders, given their statutory nature and impact on the rights of the accused, can be considered beyond the scope of interlocutory orders, thereby making them subject to revision under Section 397. This decision will clarify the procedural avenues available for challenging default bail orders and potentially reshape the landscape of bail jurisprudence in India.
The outcome of this deliberation is highly anticipated, as it will define the balance between procedural rigor and the substantive rights of the accused, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done.