Rejection of default bail treated as interlocutory order, so revision was held not maintainable under criminal procedure law.

Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars revision against interlocutory orders, and an order is interlocutory unless it substantially affects rights or finally concludes the proceeding. Applying that test, rejection of an application for default bail under Section 167(2) did not finally determine the accused's bail rights or end the proceeding. The Madras High Court therefore treated the order as interlocutory and held that revisional interference was unavailable, with the revision petition consequently not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision petition was maintainable against the order rejecting the application for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether such order was an interlocutory order barred from revision under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The bar under Section 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 excludes revision against interlocutory orders. An order is not interlocutory only if it substantially affects rights or finally concludes the particular proceeding. Applying that test, rejection of a request for default bail under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not finally determine the accused's right to bail or conclude the proceedings. The Court therefore treated the impugned order as interlocutory and held that revisional interference was not available.

Conclusion: The revision petition was not maintainable and the challenge to the order rejecting default bail failed.

---