Final bail orders cannot be reviewed or recalled by the same court; cancellation requires legally permissible grounds and competent jurisdiction.

A criminal court cannot review or recall its own final bail order in the guise of cancellation, because Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure bars alteration of a signed final order except for clerical or arithmetical error. Cancellation under Section 439(2) is a distinct power and must rest on legally permissible grounds before a competent court, not on the same court revisiting its own decision. Bail granted under Section 167(2) is a statutory default release, but it still cannot be set aside by the same court through review proceedings merely on the footing that it was wrongly granted. The text states that the earlier grant of bail stood restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court could cancel bail granted earlier by treating its own bail order as liable to review in view of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) whether an order granting bail on default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be set aside by the same Court in the absence of supervening circumstances.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court could cancel bail granted earlier by treating its own bail order as liable to review in view of Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Section 362 bars a criminal court from altering or reviewing a final order once signed, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. An order granting bail finally disposes of the bail application, and in the absence of an express statutory power of review the court becomes functus officio. Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) is a distinct power and does not authorise the very court that granted bail to sit in review of its own order on the ground that it was wrongly decided or obtained by misrepresentation.

Conclusion: The High Court could not lawfully review and cancel its own earlier bail order; the action was barred by Section 362.

Issue (ii): Whether an order granting bail on default under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be set aside by the same Court in the absence of supervening circumstances.

Analysis: Bail granted for default under Section 167(2) is not a bail order on merits but a statutory release arising from failure to complete investigation within time. Such bail may be cancelled by a competent court when legally permissible circumstances exist, but the distinction between cancellation for supervening grounds and setting aside an illegal or perverse order must be maintained. Where the challenge is to the legality of the grant itself, the proper course is not a review by the same court that passed the order. The High Court, therefore, exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the informant's petition and undoing the earlier grant of bail on the footing of illegality.

Conclusion: The bail could not be set aside by the same High Court in review proceedings merely on the ground that it was wrongly granted.

Final Conclusion: The cancellation order was unsustainable in law, and the earlier grant of bail stood restored.

Ratio Decidendi: A criminal court cannot review or recall its own final bail order in the guise of cancellation; Section 362 bars such review, and cancellation under Section 439(2) must rest on legally permissible grounds before a competent court.

---