Revisional interference with remand orders is barred where the custody order is interlocutory, while refusal of remand may be challengeable.

A remand order granting police custody is treated as interlocutory in nature because it does not affect the progress or final decision of the trial, so revision under the Code of Criminal Procedure is not maintainable against such an order. By contrast, refusal of remand may prejudice investigation, and a prosecution revision against that refusal can be maintainable. Applying that principle, the court noted that the prosecution had promptly sought remand, the sessions court granted only two days' custody on the investigative material, and no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error was shown to justify interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order granting police remand for two days and the revision against the rejection of remand were amenable to interference in revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The Court considered the scope of revisional interference with remand orders and the effect of the Supreme Court's ruling that a remand order does not affect the progress or final decision of the trial and is therefore interlocutory in nature. It also distinguished the situation where remand is refused, holding that refusal may adversely affect investigation and that a revision by the prosecution against such refusal is maintainable. On the facts, the prosecution had sought remand promptly and the additional sessions court had granted only two days' custody on the basis of material collected during investigation. The Court found no illegality, impropriety, or jurisdictional error warranting interference.

Conclusion: The revision application was not maintainable against the order granting remand, and the impugned order suffered from no legal infirmity.

---