1 2025:CGHC:3991 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1593 of 2022 Chandra Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Kewal Prasad Sahu Aged About 42 Years R/o Sitamani Chowk Korba, Police Station City Kotwali Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner/Complainant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Police Station Dabhra, District- Janjgir -Champa, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Lal Sahu S/o Gopal, Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Khemda, Police Station Dabhra, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner/Complainant : Mr. Vikash Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2 : None present. For State : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL _________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board 22.01.2025 1. The petitioner/complainant has filed the instant petition under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. praying for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2- Shyam Sundar @ Shyam Lal Sahu by an order dated 10.08.2022 passed by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022. 2 2. The facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the First Information Report was lodged at Police Station- Dabhra for offence punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC against the accused/ respondent No. 2, with alleging that the respondent No. 2 is that just after six months of his marriage, he started beating and ill-treating his wife- Chetan Bai Sahu in connection with demand of dowry and when this persistent ill-treatment became unbearable, on 25.01.2022, she committed suicide by consuming pesticide. Thereafter, the accused/ respondent No. 2 was arrested on 27.01.2022 by the police of Police Station- Dabhra and thereafter the accused preferred the regular bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was rejected and then, he preferred the bail application bearing M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. before this Court and this Court vide order dated 10.08.2022 granted bail to the accused/ respondent No. 2. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner/complainant for cancellation of the bail granted to the accused/respondent No. 2. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused/ respondent No. 2 bail was granted by this Court in connection with Crime No. 18/2022 registered at Police Station- Dabhra, District- Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) in M.Cr.C. No. 6209 of 2022 vide order dated 10.08.2022. He further submits that the concerned police of Police Station has made proper and fair investigation and registered the case on the basis of incident which has been occurred. The accused/ respondent No. 2 is fully involved and thereby the above incident has been taken place with the act of accused and his wife/Chetan Bai 3 Sahu was subjected to cruelty by the accused/respondent No. 2. The concerned Police investigated into the matter and registered the crime for an offence punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC against the accused/respondent No. 2. So looking to the gravity of the offence, the accused is not entitled for bail. Therefore, the bail granted to the accused/respondent No. 2 vide order dated 10.08.2022 by this Court in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022 may be rejected under Sectin 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. 4. Learned counsel for the State/respondent No. 1 supports the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. None present for respondent No. 2, despite service of notice. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. It is vivid from case diary that against the accused/respondent No. 2, the case was registered under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC under Crime No. 18/2022, registered at Police Station-Dabhra, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.). The application filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by the accused/respondent No. 2 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.08.2022 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 6209/2022 and he was granted regular bail in the said offence. Hence, the petition filed by the petitioner, who is the complainant and relative of the deceased (Chetan Bai Sahu) to cancel the bail of the accused/respondent No. 2. 8. Section 439 (2) in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides as under:- “(2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person 4 who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.” 9. In the present case, petitioner/complainant wants cancellation of bail of the accused/ respondent No. 2 only on this ground that the accused is involved in heinous crime and the case was registered against him under Sections 306 & 498-A of IPC. 10. This Court observed in the matter of Chandra Kumar Jain Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Other connected matters, passed in CRMP No. 1686/2019, order dated 25.06.2021, in para 26 as under:- “ 26. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Abdul Basit alias Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Choudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754, has considered all its earlier judgments on the issue and pointed out distinction between review/recall of order granting bail from cancellation of bail order and have held that the Court granting bail cannot review its order on the ground of its being illegal, unjustified or perverse in view of express bar contained in Section 362 of the Cr.P.C. and held in paragraphs 20, 21, 26 and 27 of the report, which reads thus:- “20. In the instant case, the respondents herein had filed the criminal miscellaneous petition before the High Court seeking cancellation of bail on grounds that the bail was obtained by the petitioners herein by gross misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging in fraud. Thus, the petition challenged the legality of the grant of bail and required the bail order to be set aside on ground of its being perverse in law. Such determination would entail eventual cancellation of bail. The circumstances brought on record did not reflect any situation where the bail was misused by the petitioner-accused. Therefore, the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being 5 perverse in law. 21. It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of a direct statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in the Code for the same. Section 362 of the Code operates as a 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. 26. 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 petitioner- accused. 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 petitioner- accused during the grant of bail, the High Court could not have entertained the respondent/informant's prayer by setting in review of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition. 27. Herein, the High Court has assigned an erroneous 6 interpretation to the well settled position of law, assumed expanded jurisdiction into 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 required to be set aside.” 11. Applying the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter referred to above, having perused the material available on record, provisions contained in Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C.. The petitioner/ complainant has failed to show any good ground before this Court so as to warrant interference by this Court in cancellation of bail. There is no cogent material to indicate that the accused person has misused his liberty while on bail, has not found guilty of conduct which would warrant him being deprive of his liberty. 12. In the result, the aforesaid petition filed under Section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) JUDGE AMIT PATEL Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL Date: 2025.01.27 15:13:42 +0530