[2025:RJ-JP:10565]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 15/2024 Karmata W/o Late Shri Radheshyam, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Saloda Ward No. 44, Udae Mod, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.).

--Complainant-Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent

2. Vijay Singh S/o Rai Singh, R/o Gudhachandraji, Police Station Nadoti, District Karauli (Raj.)

---Accused-Respondent For Complainant- : Mr. Kailash Chand Meena for Petitioner(s) Mr. Rajveer Singh Gurjar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, for accused-

respondent Vijay Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

06/03/2025

1. Heard.

2. By way of this application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-respondent No.2 Vijay Singh by this Court vide order dated 04.08.2023 passed in S.B.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7152/2023.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that after completion of investigation, police has filed charge sheet in the court concerned. He submits that by concealing material important facts from this Court, the accused respondents has obtained bail in this case. He submits that wrong facts have been submitted before the Court at the time of decision of the bail application of the accused respondent. He contends that at the time of deciding bail application of the accused respondent No.2, it was submitted befoe the Court that no recovery has been effected from the possession of the petitioner whereas recovery of blood stained iron rod has been recovered at the instance of the accused respondent. Recovery memo is the part of the charge sheet. He submits that looking to the gravity of offence and seriousness of the allegations, facility of bail granted to the accused respondent should be cancelled.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor does not dispute the aforesaid factual position, submitted by the counsel for the petitioner/complainant. He however, submits that in view of the provisions of Section 362 Cr.P.C., the order granting bail cannot be reviewed/cancelled.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent opposes the instant bail cancellation application. He submits that by considering the facts and circumstances in totality and the fact that respondent accused Vijay Singh was not named in the FIR and there are omnibus allegations against the accused respondent, facility of bail was granted to him and therefore, there arises no question for cancellation of bail. It is also argued that that the cancelling the bail passed by this Court tantamounts to review of the order passed by this Court, which as a matter of fact, is barred by Section 362 of the Code.

6. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and perused the material available on record.

7. While granting bail to the accused respondents, this Court considered the facts and circumstances in their entirety and looking to the fact that the accused respondent was not named in the FIR and there were omnibus allegations against him in the statements of two witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. However, recovery has been effected at the instance of the accused respondent and thus, the submission made by counsel for the accused respondent at the time of deciding bail application, is negated. But law is well settled that the judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by the Court passing such judgment and order in absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the Court. The singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of clerical or arithmetical error by the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Abdul Basit versus Abdul Kadir reported [2014] 10 SCC 754 has also held that since no express provision for review of order granting b