https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340187 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. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:38:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340187 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. Case-Laws Money Laundering Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=340187