Interlocutory bail orders cannot be revised, and cancellation needs supervening circumstances showing misuse of liberty.

An order granting or refusing bail is interlocutory because it lacks finality and may be revisited, so revisional jurisdiction under section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised against it. Cancellation of bail already granted requires cogent, overwhelming and supervening circumstances showing likely tampering with evidence, interference with justice, absconding, or misuse of liberty. In the absence of any subsequent event, breach of condition, or material showing abuse of bail, cancellation is not sustainable. The revisional order was set aside and the original bail order restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a revision against an order granting bail was barred as being against an interlocutory order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether cancellation of the bail already granted was justified in the absence of supervening circumstances under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): whether a revision against an order granting bail was barred as being against an interlocutory order under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: An order granting or refusing bail is interlocutory in nature because bail can be renewed from time to time and such an order lacks finality. Revisional powers under section 397(2) cannot be exercised against such interlocutory orders.

Conclusion: The revision before the Sessions Court was not maintainable.

Issue (ii): whether cancellation of the bail already granted was justified in the absence of supervening circumstances under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Cancellation of bail requires very cogent and overwhelming circumstances, normally supported by supervening events showing that the accused is likely to tamper with evidence, interfere with the course of justice, or abscond. No such subsequent event, breach of condition, or material indicating misuse of liberty was shown.

Conclusion: The order cancelling bail was not sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The revisional order of the Sessions Court was set aside and the bail order of the Magistrate was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A bail order is interlocutory for the purpose of section 397(2), and cancellation of bail already granted can be ordered only on proof of cogent, overwhelming, and supervening circumstances showing likely abuse of liberty or interference with justice.

---