TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 1132
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as registered Under Sections 365, 120B, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act against two accused-Petitioners herein-Kamal Hussain and Mumin Uddin. Further, another Police Case No. 126 of 2012 was registered Under Section 365, 120B, 302, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25(1-B)(a), (2) and (3) of the Arms Act for threatening to commit murder of the witnesses in the aforesaid Sessions Trial against the Petitioner accused persons herein and the corresponding Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 was committed. The accused-Petitioners were in judicial custody. While the aforesaid two accused Petitioners in Sessions Case No. 75 of 2012 were acquitted, the Trial Court had enlarged accused Petitioner-Abdul Basit on bail by order dated 24.01.2013. 3. The wife of the deceased preferred Writ Petition No. 4523 of 2012 before the High Court for the direction to investigating agencies in Police Case No. 126 of 2012 to investigate properly. The High Court took note of the fact that the Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012 is at the stage of framing of charges and observed that depending upon the materials on record the Trial Court is at liberty to invoke Section 173(8) of the Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....held as under: there would be no difficulty in holding that granting of bail contrary to law or contrary to law laid down by the Apex Court can constitute a valid ground for cancellation of bail already granted; this will no (sic) fall foul of Section 362 of the Code. 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid cancellation of bail by the High Court, the accused-Petitioners are before us in these petitions. 9. The impugned judgment and order is assailed by the Petitioners on the grounds, inter alia, that the High Court could not have entertained an application for cancellation of bail on grounds of misrepresentation as such objection could only be raised in an appeal by the informant-Respondent. Further, that the said judgment and order cancelling the bail passed by the High Court tantamounts to review of the earlier order of the High Court whereby it had granted bail to the Petitioners and such review being barred by Section 362 of the Code renders the impugned judgment and order perverse and liable to be set aside. 10. Per contra, the Respondents would support the judgment(s) and order passed by the High Court cancelling the bail granted to the Petitioners. 11. We have heard the learned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court or Court of Session regarding bail (1) *** (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. 16. Since the submission made by the parties center round the interpretation to be placed upon Section 362 of the Code, it may be necessary to have a glance at the same. The heading of Section 362 of the Code provides for the "Court not to alter judgment" and the provision operates as a bar for the court to alter or review its decisions once pronounced. It reads as under: Save as otherwise provided by this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, 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. 17. It is trite that Section 167(2) creates a deeming fiction whereby the release of a person is equated to his release under Chapter XXXIII of the Code. However, an order for release on bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) is not an order on merits but an order-on-default of the prosecuting agency. Such an order could be nullified for special re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....powers of the Courts granting and cancelling the bail. This Court observed as under: 16. Section 439 of the new Code confers special powers on High Court or Court of Session regarding bail. This was also the position Under Section 498, Code of Criminal Procedure of the old Code. That is to say, even if a Magistrate refuses to grant bail to an accused person, the High Court or the Court of Session may order for grant of bail in appropriate cases. Similarly Under Section 439(2) of the new Code, the High Court or the Court of Session may direct any person who has been released on bail to be arrested and committed to custody. In the old Code, Section 498(2) was worded hi somewhat different language when it said that a High Court or Court of Session may cause any person who has been admitted to bail under Sub-section (1) to be arrested and may commit him to custody. In other words, Under Section 498(2) of the old Code, a person who had been admitted to bail by the High Court could be committed to custody only by the High Court. Similarly, if a person was admitted to bail by a Court of Session, it was only the Court of Session that could commit him to custody. This restriction upon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncellation of bail. The Bench while affirming the principle laid down in Puran case (supra) has observed that when irrelevant materials have been taken into consideration by the Court granting order of bail, the same makes the said order vulnerable and subject to scrutiny by the appellate Court and that no review would lie Under Section 362 of the Code. In essence, this Court has opined that if the order of grant of bail is perverse, the same can be set at naught only by the superior court and has left no room for a review by the same Court. 22. Reverberating the aforesaid principle, this Court in the recent decision in Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. 2013 (12) SCALE 190 has observed that: 20...There is also a distinction between the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the superior court. 23. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections in such miscellaneous petitions by the High Court are unwarranted, not referable to any statutory provision and in substance the abuse of the process of the court as no review of a final order passed by the High Court is contemplated under the Code. This Court has observed as under: 9. There is no provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure authorising the High Court to review its judgment passed either in exercise of its appellate or revisional or original criminal jurisdiction. Such a power cannot be exercised with the aid or under the cloak of Section 482 of the Code. 10. Section 362 of the Code mandates 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 an arithmetical error. The section is based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court, the said court in the absence of a specific statutory provision becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain a fresh prayer for the same relief unless the former order of final disposal is set aside by a court of competent jurisdiction in a manner prescribed by law. The court becomes fun....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rb of inherent jurisdiction. 28. This Court in paragraph 30 of its decision in Central Bureau of Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy (2013) 7 SCC 452 has cautioned that cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made, it should always be exercised very sparingly by the court of law. 29. It is a well settled proposition of law what cannot be done directly, cannot be done indirectly. While exercising a statutory power a Court is bound to act within the four corners of the Statute. The statutory exercise of the power stands on a different pedestal than the power of judicial review vested in a Court. The same has been upheld by this Court in Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd.. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. (2006) 13 SCC 737, U.P. State Brass-ware Corporation Ltd.. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479 and Rashmi Rekha Thatoi and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors. (2012) 5 SCC 690. It is the duty of the superior courts to follow the command of the statutory provisions and be guided by the precedents and issue directions which are permissible in law. 30. In the instant case, the order for bail in the bail application preferred by the accused-Petitioner....