Bail orders are not always interlocutory; revision may lie where grant of bail appears illegal or causes gross miscarriage of justice

An order granting bail is not invariably interlocutory, and a revisional court may interfere where the grant is alleged to be unjust, illegal, or likely to cause gross miscarriage of justice. On the facts, the accused was said to be a foreign national involved in serious smuggling activity, so the challenge to bail was capable of revision. The revisional court's stay of the bail order was therefore within jurisdiction and justified, and the challenge to that order failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revision against the order granting bail was maintainable and whether the stay of the bail order by the revisional court was justified.

Analysis: An order granting bail may substantially affect the rights of the accused as well as the prosecuting authority, and it is not invariably an interlocutory order. The revisional court can interfere where the order granting bail is found to be unjust, illegal, or productive of gross miscarriage of justice. In the facts of the case, the accused was alleged to be a foreign national involved in serious smuggling activity, and the challenge to the grant of bail was therefore capable of revision. On that basis, the stay of the bail order by the revisional court was held to be within jurisdiction and justified.

Conclusion: The revision was maintainable and the revisional court was justified in staying the bail order; the challenge to that order failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An order granting bail is not necessarily an interlocutory order, and a revisional court may interfere with such an order where it is alleged to be illegal or to result in gross miscarriage of justice.

---