Chattisgarh High Court

State Of Chhattisgarh vs Anil Kumar Gupta on 18 August, 2025

Author: Rajani Dubey

Bench: Rajani Dubey

                                                      1




Digitally signed
                                                                         2025:CGHC:41509
by RAVVA UTTEJ
KUMAR RAJU
                                                                                     NAFR

                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR


                                          CRMP No. 2142 of 2022

            State of Chhattisgarh, through - Station House Officer, Police Station New Rajendra
            Nagar, District : Raipur (C.G.)
                                                                                  ... Petitioner

                                                   Versus

            Anil Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramji Sah, aged about 27 years, at present R/o
            Housing Board Colony, Pirda Chowk, Raipur, (C.G.)
            Permanent R/o Village Hadadar, Gadhwa (Jharkhand)
                                                                          ... Respondent

(Cause title is taken from CIS System.)

For Petitioner/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, P.L. For Respondent : Mr. Pushkar Sinha, Advocate.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 18.08.2025

1. The petitioner/State has filed the instant petition under Section 439 (2)

of the Cr.P.C, 1973 praying for cancellation of bail granted to

respondent- Anil Kumar Gupta by an order dated 19.07.2022 passed

by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4572/2022.

2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the First

Information Report was lodged at Police Station- New Rajendra

Nagar, District Raipur (C.G.) for offence punishable under Sections

420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the accused/respondent with

alleging that the respondent has committed cheating and forgery in

respect of about 40 vehicles whose business of purchase and sale of

used vehicles were carried out by the complainant viz. B. Venkat Rao.

It was alleged that the respondent/accused is an agent of United India

Insurance Company and does insurance of old four wheeler vehicles

by obtaining the amount of insurance premium. It was alleged that the

accused insured vehicles in the Insurance Company be decreasing

the delivery value of vehicles and mentioning minimum premium

whereas a forged policy was handed to the customer showing excess

premium by increasing the value of vehicles. Thus, the

accused/respondent thereby committed cheating and forgery of great

magnitude. Thereafter, the accused preferred the regular bail

application bearing M.Cr.C. No. 4572/2022 under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. before this Court and this Court vide order dated 19.07.2022

granted bail to the accused/ respondent. Hence, this petition has been

filed by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of the bail granted

to the accused/respondent.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State submits that the accused/

respondent bail was granted by this Court in connection with Crime

No. 121/2022 registered at Police Station- New Rajendra Nagar,

District- Raipur (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No.4572 of 2022 vide order dated

19.07.2022.

4. He further submits that the concerned police of Police Station has

made proper and fair investigation and registered the case on the

basis of incident which has been occurred. The accused/ respondent

is fully involved and thereby the above incident has been taken place

with the act of accused, it is clear that at the time of hearing of bail

application, the investigation was still going on and the charge-sheet

has not been filed. On the basis of wrong statement that the charge-

sheet has been filed, bail was granted to him vide 19.07.2022 in

M.Cr.C. No. 4572/2022. The concerned Police investigated into the

matter and registered the crime for an offence punishable under

Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC against the accused/respondent.

So looking to the gravity of the offence, the accused is not entitled for

bail. Therefore, the bail granted to the accused/respondent vide order

dated 19.07.2022 by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4572/2022 may be

rejected under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent opposes the argument of the

learned counsel for the petitioner/State.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

7. It is vivid from case diary that against the accused/respondent the

case was registered under Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC

under Crime No. 121/2022, registered at Police Station- New

Rajendra Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.). The application filed under

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the accused/respondent was allowed by this

Court vide order dated 19.07.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 4572 and

he was granted regular bail in the said offence. Hence, the petition

filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail of the accused/respondent.

8. Section 439 (2) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides

as under:-

"(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person

who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody."

9. In the present case, petitioner/State wants cancellation of bail of the

accused/ respondent only on this ground that the accused is involved

in heinous crime and the case was registered against him under

Sections 420, 467, 468 & 471 of IPC.

10. This Court observed in the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. State

of Chhattisgarh & Other connected matters, passed in CRMP No.

1686/2019, order dated 25.06.2021, in para 26 as under:-

" 26. 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 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. 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.

21. 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.

26. 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.

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."

11. Applying the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter

referred to above, having perused the material available on record,

provisions contained in Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.. The petitioner/

State has failed to show any good ground before this Court so as to

warrant interference by this Court in cancellation of bail. There is no

cogent material to indicate that the accused person has misused his

liberty while on bail, has not found guilty of conduct which would

warrant him being deprive of his liberty.

12. In the result, the aforesaid petition filed under Section 439 (2) of

Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

(Rajani Dubey)