TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court dismisses application to recall bail order observations; emphasizes limited review power under Section 362 Cr.P.C.</h1> The Court dismissed the application seeking to recall observations in the bail order, citing the restrictions under Section 362 Cr.P.C. The Court ... Revival of twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA after having been declared as unconstitutional - parallel provision to Section 482 Cr.P.C. or not - limitation imposed on civil powers existed in Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Section 362 Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- The reliance placed by the applicant/petitioner on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY [2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SUPREME COURT] as well as STATE OF PUNJAB AND SUMEDH SINGH SAINI VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC. [2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] is to state that inherent powers of the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. are saved by Section 362 of Cr.P.C. but in NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. VERSUS KRISHNA KUMAR PANDEY [2019 (12) TMI 1509 - SUPREME COURT] the petitioner was ex parte/not heard and STATE OF PUNJAB AND SUMEDH SINGH SAINI VERSUS DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR & ORS. ETC. [2011 (12) TMI 656 - SUPREME COURT] rather carved out certain exceptions to the operation of the bar under Section 362 Cr.P.C. as quoted below: i. If a judgment has been pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice; or ii. Where the order has been pronounced without giving an opportunity of being heard to a party affected by it; or iii. Where an order was obtained by abuse of the process of court which would really amount to its being without jurisdiction. The above exceptions, in no way apply to the facts of the present case and hence the present application is not maintainable in light of the express bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. - application dismissed. Issues:1. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to recall observations in bail order.2. Interpretation of Section 362 Cr.P.C. in relation to recalling observations in bail order.3. Applicability of inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.4. Consideration of previous judgments on the finality of bail orders and the power of review.Analysis:1. The petitioner filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to recall certain observations made in the bail order. The petitioner argued that the observations could be misconstrued and might lead to a miscarriage of justice. The petitioner relied on previous judgments by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Court, emphasizing that the twin conditions for bail under Section 45 of PMLA were unconstitutional as per a Supreme Court ruling.2. The respondent contended that the Court had become functus officio after delivering the judgment in the bail application, invoking Section 362 Cr.P.C., which restricts the alteration or review of a judgment once it is signed. The petitioner, however, argued that the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C. should not limit the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., especially since a bail order is considered interlocutory and not final.3. The Court analyzed the arguments presented and referred to relevant case laws to determine the scope of its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court highlighted that the exceptions under Section 362 Cr.P.C., such as judgments pronounced without jurisdiction or in violation of natural justice, did not apply to the current case. Therefore, the Court concluded that the application to recall observations in the bail order was not maintainable due to the express bar under Section 362 of the Cr.P.C.4. In further support of its decision, the Court cited a previous judgment emphasizing that once a bail order is granted, the Court becomes functus officio, and the power of review is restricted. The Court clarified that even in cases of misrepresentation during the grant of bail, the High Court cannot review its judgment by entertaining a miscellaneous petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed both applications and disposed of any pending applications.Overall, the judgment delves into the intricacies of recalling observations in a bail order, the limitations imposed by Section 362 Cr.P.C., and the precedents governing the finality of bail orders and the power of review by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
