In the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain v. State of CG and others
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:39825 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 2445 of 2023 X D/o Y ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bodhghat, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 2 – AB S/o CD ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vikash Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Manoj Mishra, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J Order on Board 08/08/2025 By way of this petition under Section 439(2) of CRPC the petitioner is seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 by this Court vide order dated 30.6.2023 passed in CRR No.512/2023. 02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.2 has not followed the conditions imposed on him while granting bail and after release on bail, he threatened the victim for not deposing against him, upon 2 which mother of the victim lodged a written complaint before SHO, PS Kotwali, Distt. Bastar (Annexure P/2). Therefore, the bail granted to respondent No.2 is liable to be cancelled. 03. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 strongly opposes the submission of the petitioner and submits that no such act as alleged by the petitioner has been committed by respondent No.2 and therefore, the present petition being devoid of substance is liable to be dismissed. 04. Learned counsel appearing for the State has duly assisted the Court. 05. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 06. This Court vide order dated 30.6.2023 passed in CRR No.512/2023 considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular the social status report of the applicant/respondent No.2, granted him bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought cancellation of bail on the ground that respondent No.2 is threatening the victim and that mother of the victim has lodged a report to this effect before Police Station-Kotwali (Annexure P/2). 07. In the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. State of CG and others (CRMP No.1686/2019) and other connected petitions this Court observed in paras 26 & 27 of the order dated 25.6.2021 as under: “26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Choudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, has considered all its earlier judgments on the issue and pointed out distinction between review/recall of order granting bail from cancellation of bail order and have held that the Court granting bail cannot review its order on the ground of its being 3 illegal, unjustified or perverse in view of express bar contained in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and held in paragraphs 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the report, which reads thus:- “20. 21. 26. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of its being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner- accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse in law.
Decision
It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the court. In the instant case, the order for bail in the bail application preferred by the accused-petitioners herein finally disposes of the issue in consideration and grants relief of bail to the applicants therein. Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail exists under the Code, the High Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of the Code applies herein barring the review of judgment and order of the Court granting bail to the petitioner- accused. Even though the cancellation of bail rides on the satisfaction and discretion of the Court under Section 439(2) of the Code, it does not vest the power of review in the court which granted bail. Even in the light of fact of misrepresentation by the petitioner-accused during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant's prayer by setting in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition. 4 27. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed expanded jurisdiction into itself and passed an order in contravention of Section 362 of the Code cancelling the bail granted to the petitioners herein. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the High Court is not justified in reviewing its earlier order of grant of bail and thus, the impugned judgment and order required to be set aside.” 27. Further, on the issue with regard to rejection of bail and cancellation of bail already granted, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Dolat Ram and others Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, has held in para 4, which reads as under:- 1. “4. Rejection of bail in a non-bailable case at the initial stage and the cancellation of bail so granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. Very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of the bail, already Generally speaking, the grounds for granted. cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are : interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial. These principles, it appears, were lost sight of by the High Court when it decided to cancel the bail, already granted. The High Court it appears to us overlooked the distinction of the factors relevant for rejecting bail in a non-bailable case in the first instance and the cancellation of bail already granted. 08. Both the learned counsel for the parties have admitted this fact that evidence of the complainant has been recorded. Therefore, in light of above decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is clear that no such circumstance made out by the petitioner or any cogent material brought on record which 5 could warrant cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 thereby depriving him of his liberty. Accordingly, the present petition being sans substance is liable to be dismissed and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.08.08 16:44:43 +0530 MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Khan