Chattisgarh High Court
Chandra Kumar Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 January, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:3991
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRMP No. 1593 of 2022
Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Kewal Prasad Sahu Aged About 42 Years
R/o Sitamani Chowk Korba, Police Station City Kotwali Korba, District Korba
Chhattisgarh.
---Petitioner/Complainant
versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Police Station
Dabhra, District- Janjgir -Champa, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Lal Sahu S/o Gopal, Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Khemda, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.
---Respondents
_________________________________________________________
For Petitioner/Complainant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 : None present.
For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL
_________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Order on Board
22.01.2025
1. The petitioner/complainant has filed the instant petition under Section
439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted to
respondent No. 2- Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Lal Sahu by an order
dated 10.08.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022.
2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the First
Information Report was lodged at Police Station- Dabhra for offence
punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC against the accused/
respondent No. 2, with alleging that the respondent No. 2 is that just
after six months of his marriage, he started beating and ill-treating his
wife- Chetan Bai Sahu in connection with demand of dowry and when
this persistent ill-treatment became unbearable, on 25.01.2022, she
committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Thereafter, the accused/
respondent No. 2 was arrested on 27.01.2022 by the police of Police
Station- Dabhra and thereafter the accused preferred the regular bail
application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was
rejected and then, he preferred the bail application bearing M.Cr.C.
No. 6209/2022 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and this
Court vide order dated 10.08.2022 granted bail to the accused/
respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition has been filed by the
petitioner/complainant for cancellation of the bail granted to the
accused/respondent No. 2.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/
respondent No. 2 bail was granted by this Court in connection with
Crime No. 18/2022 registered at Police Station- Dabhra, District-
Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 6209 of 2022 vide order dated
10.08.2022. 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 No. 2 is fully involved and thereby the above incident has
been taken place with the act of accused and his wife/Chetan Bai
Sahu was subjected to cruelty by the accused/respondent No. 2. The
concerned Police investigated into the matter and registered the crime
for an offence punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC against
the accused/respondent No. 2. So looking to the gravity of the
offence, the accused is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the bail granted
to the accused/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.08.2022 by this
Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022 may be rejected under Sectin 439 (2)
of Cr.P.C.
4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 supports the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. None present for respondent No. 2, despite service of notice.
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 No. 2,
the case was registered under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC under
Crime No. 18/2022, registered at Police Station-Dabhra, District-
Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The application filed under Section 439 of
Cr.P.C. by the accused/respondent No. 2 was allowed by this Court
vide order dated 10.08.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022 and he
was granted regular bail in the said offence. Hence, the petition filed
by the petitioner, who is the complainant and relative of the deceased
(Chetan Bai Sahu) to cancel the bail of the accused/respondent No.
2.
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/complainant wants cancellation of bail
of the accused/ respondent No. 2 only on this ground that the accused
is involved in heinous crime and the case was registered against him
under Sections 306 & 498-A 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/
complainant 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)
JUDGE
AMIT PATEL
