'Exceptional Case': High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Recalling Pre-Arrest Bail Cancellation Despite Lack Of Inherent Power Of Review/ Recall
Calling it an "exceptional situation", the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a trial court order, recalling its bail cancellation order passed on the basis of false statement that the accused failed to join investigation as the particular day was a public holiday.Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail...
Calling it an "exceptional situation", the Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld a trial court order, recalling its bail cancellation order passed on the basis of false statement that the accused failed to join investigation as the particular day was a public holiday.
Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul said, "This Court finds no illegality or perversity in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to the private respondents. The facts of the case present an exceptional situation where the recall of the earlier order was warranted to ensure that justice was not compromised due to an inadvertent error. The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any compelling reason justifying the cancellation of bail, as the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional overreach."
The Court acknowledged that although the general rule is that a Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction to recall its own orders, it cannot be ignored that the dismissal of the anticipatory bail application of the respondents'-accused's occurred in circumstances that warranted reconsideration.
"The private respondents cannot be made to suffer due to an error committed by a police official, nor can they be penalized for the administrative exigency resulting from the unexpected declaration of a holiday," it added.
The Court was hearing a plea under Section 483(3) of BNSS seeking the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted by the Trial Court, who stand accused in case the FIR under Sections 420, 120-B of the IPC.
The petitioner, who is the complainant in the FIR, alleged that the respondents entered into an agreement to sell a commercial property, accepted and an earnest money deposit of approximately Rs.52 lakhs, and thereafter reneged on their commitment, thereby committing fraud and cheating upon the petitioner.
It was further submitted that the concession of interim bail and asked to join investigation within 7 days and cooperate with the investigating agency.
The Trial Court initially dismissed the anticipatory bail application of the private respondents on 16.10.2024 , due to their alleged failure to comply with the direction to join the investigation. However, the very next day, the private respondents moved a fresh application, upon which the learned Trial Court recalled its previous order and granted them anticipatory bail, he added.
Counsel for the petitioner argued that such an exercise of jurisdiction by the learned Trial Court is legally impermissible and, therefore, the bail granted to the private respondents ought to be cancelled.
After hearing the submission, the Court noted that, "It is a well established principle of law that a Criminal Court does not possess the inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases where the order suffers from a clerical, typographical or mathematical error."
However, the application of this rule must be considered in conjunction with the fundamental requirement of ensuring that no party is unfairly prejudiced due to circumstances beyond their control, added the Court.
Justice Kaul highlighted that "the private respondents, who are women, 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 Gram Panchayat elections, the case was automatically adjourned to 16.10.2024."
On 16.10.2024, in the absence of the private respondents, their anticipatory bail application was dismissed primarily due to an incorrect statement made by a police official that they had failed to comply with the direction to join the investigation.
The Court noted that the State counsel, on the basis of the affidavit filed by Assistant Commission of Police, Central, Amritsar City, has 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.
It noted further that the private respondents, upon discovering that the bail application had been 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 on 07.10.2024 and and that the dismissal order had been passed in their absence due to unforeseen circumstances.
The judge said that the Trial Court, upon 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 private respondents.
Stating that, "the decision of the Trial Court to entertain the recall application in the circumstances cannot be said to be an arbitrary or capricious exercise of jurisdiction but a necessary step to prevent a miscarriage of justice," the Court dismissed the plea.
Mr. R.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Nitin Narula, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Title: Pritpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 94
