Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2014 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1132 - SC - Indian LawsCancellation of bail granted to the Petitioners herein by the High Court - whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court Under Section 439(2) of the Code justified in the instant case? - Held that - 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.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. 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. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed 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. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is set aside. The interim order granted on 02.09.2013 by this Court granting bail to the accused-Petitioners shall continue till the disposal of Police Case No. 126 of 2012 corresponding to Sessions Case No. 182 of 2012.
Issues Involved:
1. Cancellation of bail by the High Court. 2. Interpretation and application of Section 167(2), 362, and 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to review its own orders. Detailed Analysis: 1. Cancellation of Bail by the High Court: The High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati canceled the bail granted to the Petitioners by its order dated 16.07.2013. The cancellation was based on the ground that the direction for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the Code did not render the chargesheet submitted by the police infructuous. Consequently, the accused were not entitled to default bail under Section 167(2)(a)(i) of the Code. The High Court held that granting bail contrary to law or the law laid down by the Apex Court constitutes a valid ground for cancellation of bail. 2. Interpretation and Application of Section 167(2), 362, and 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: - Section 167(2): This section provides for the release of an accused person if the investigating agency fails to complete the investigation within the stipulated time (90 days for serious offenses). The Petitioners were granted bail under this provision due to the delay in the investigation. - Section 362: This section bars the court from altering or reviewing its judgment or final order except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. The Petitioners argued that the High Court's order canceling the bail amounted to a review of its earlier order, which is prohibited under this section. - Section 439(2): This section empowers the High Court or Court of Session to cancel bail and direct the arrest and commitment to custody of a person who has been released on bail. The High Court used this provision to cancel the bail granted to the Petitioners. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court to Review its Own Orders: The Supreme Court analyzed whether the High Court was justified in canceling the bail under Section 439(2) and whether this action amounted to an impermissible review under Section 362. The Court held that an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by a superior court, not by the same court that granted the bail. The Supreme Court emphasized that Section 362 operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the court, except to correct clerical or arithmetical errors. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's order canceling the bail was not justified as it amounted to a review of its earlier order, which is barred under Section 362 of the Code. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and order, and the interim order granting bail to the Petitioners was to continue until the disposal of the corresponding Sessions Case. The Special Leave Petitions were disposed of accordingly.
|