Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed under Section 483(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents-accused persons by the Trial Court vide the impugned order, a Single Judge Bench of Manjari Nehru Kaul, JJ., dismissed the petition holding that the facts presented an exceptional situation where recalling the earlier order was warranted to ensure that justice was not compromised due to an inadvertent error. Further, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any compelling reason justifying the cancellation of bail, as the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional overreach.
Background
The complainant-petitioner and accused persons allegedly entered into an agreement to sell a commercial property. The respondents accepted an earnest money deposit of approximately Rs 52 Lakhs, but later backed away from their commitment, thereby committing fraud and cheating the petitioner. Thus, an FIR was registered against the respondents under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860. The accused persons applied for anticipatory bail, but it was rejected. However, the next day, they moved a fresh application, wherein the Trial Court recalled its previous order and granted them anticipatory bail.
Analysis
The Court reiterated that a Criminal Court did not possess the inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases where the order suffered from a clerical, typographical, or mathematical error. However, this rule must be applied after considering the fundamental requirement of ensuring that no party was unfairly prejudiced due to circumstances beyond their control.
The Court noted that the accused persons were initially granted interim bail, and their matter was fixed for hearing on 15-10-2024. However, owing to the declaration of a public holiday on account of the Gram Panchayat elections, the case was automatically adjourned to 16-10-2024. On 16-10-2024, in the absence of the accused persons, their anticipatory bail application was dismissed primarily due to an incorrect statement made by a police official that they had failed to join the investigation. The Court further noted that the State counsel, based on the affidavit filed by the Assistant Commission of Police, had unequivocally admitted that the statement made before the Trial Court was erroneous and resulted from a bona fide mistake on the part of the police official. The accused persons, upon discovering that the bail application was dismissed due to an inadvertent misrepresentation, immediately approached the Trial Court by way of an application for recall, highlighting that they had duly complied with the directions passed by the Trial Court and that the dismissal order was passed in their absence due to unforeseen circumstances. The Trial Court, after being apprised of the correct factual position, deemed it appropriate to rectify the situation by recalling its earlier order and granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons.
The Court stated that although the general rule was that a Criminal Court lacked jurisdiction to recall its own orders, it could not be ignored that the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application of the accused persons occurred in circumstances that warranted reconsideration. The accused persons could not be made to suffer due to an error committed by a police official, nor can they be penalised for the administrative exigency resulting from the unexpected declaration of a holiday. The Court added that the Trial Court’s decision to entertain the recall application in the circumstances could not be said to be an arbitrary or capricious exercise of jurisdiction but a necessary step to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Accordingly, the Court held that the facts presented an exceptional situation where recalling the earlier order was warranted to ensure that justice was not compromised due to an inadvertent error. Further, the Court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any compelling reason justifying the cancellation of bail, as the impugned order did not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional overreach.
Thus, the Court found no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the accused persons and dismissed the petition.
[Pritpal Singh v. State of Punjab, CRM-M 58257 of 2024, decided on 13-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: R.S. Bajaj and AAG Shiva Khurmi
For the respondent: Nitin Narula
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
