Rajasthan High Court
Maliram Dhanka S/O Jiwanram Jat vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 26 September, 2023
Bench: Anil Kumar Upman
[2023:RJ-JP:25048]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 113/2023
Maliram Dhanka S/o Jiwanram Jat, R/o Gori Ka Bash,
Govindgardh(Jaipur-Rural), Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through P.P.
2. Kamla @ Pooja D/o Banshidhar Dhakarwal W/o Shri
Girdhari, R/o Dhakarwalo Ki Dhani, Tan Lalasar, Police
Station Renwal, District Jaipur Rajasthan, At Present R/o
Gauri Ka Baas, Police Station Govindgarh, District
Jaipur(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anish Bhadala
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
26/09/2023
By way of this application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C., the
petitioner-complainant has approached this Court seeking
cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.2 by this
Court vide order dated 19.07.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc.
Bail Application No.8703/2023.
Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant submits that
certain important facts were intentionally concealed by the
accused respondent No.2 while arguing the bail application. He
further submits that since relevant material facts were not
considered by the Court, which were available along with the
chargesheet, the bail granted to the accused respondent No.2 may
be cancelled.
[2023:RJ-JP:25048] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-113/2023]
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the instant
bail cancellation application.
Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor
and after going through the material available on record, I am of
the firm opinion that no ground is made out to accept the instant
application for cancellation of bail. Even otherwise, Section 362
Cr.P.C. clearly provides that no Court when it has signed its
judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review
the same except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error.
This Court fortifies this view from the Supreme Court judgment in
the case of Abdul Basit @ Raju & Ors. vs Md. Abdul Kadir
Choudhary reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 wherein it was held as
under:-
"30. 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 accused-
petitioners. 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
accused-petitioners during the grant of bail, the High Court could
not have entertained the respondent/informant's prayer by sitting
in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition.
31. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous
interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed
[2023:RJ-JP:25048] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-113/2023]
expanded jurisdiction onto 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
requires to be set aside."
In view of above, the instant application for cancellation of
bail is dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J
Sudhir Asopa/16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
