ABDUL BASIT @ RAJU & ORS. ETC. versus MD. ABDUL KADIR CHAUDHARY & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 571 · Decided: 15-09-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. DATTU, S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 10 S.C.R. 571 
ABDUL BASIT @ RAJU & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
MD. ABDUL KADIR CHAUDHARY & ANR. 
(Special Leave Petitions (Crl.) Nos.6855-6857 of 2013) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2014 
[H.L. DATIU AND S.A. BOBDE, JJ.) 
BAIL: 
A 
B 
Cancellation of bail - High Court cancelling the bail c 
granted by it earlier - Held: The concept of setting aside an 
unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the 
concept of cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused's 
misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the 
grant of bail which require such cancellation -
An order 0 . 
granting bail ·can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal 
or contrary to law by the courl superior to the courl which 
granted the bail and not by the same courl -
In the instant 
case, cancellation of bail was not sought on grounds that the 
bail was obtained by the petitioners by gross 
misrepresentation of facts, misleading the court and indulging 
E 
in fraud -
The circumstances brought on record did not 
reflect any situation .where the bail was misused by accused 
-Therefore, High Court could not have enterlained the said 
petition and cancelled the bail on grounds of it being perverse 
in law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 167(2), 439(2) 
F 
and 352. 
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973: 
s.362 - Cancellation by High Courl of bail granted by it G 
earlier - Held: The order for bail in the bail application 
preferred by the accused-petitioners finally disposes of the 
issue in consideration and grants relief of bail to the applicants 
- Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail 
571 
H 
572 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.H. 
A exists under the Code, High Court becomes functus officio 
and s.362 applies barring the review of judgment and order 
of the Court granting bail to the accused-petitioners - Even 
in the light of fact of misrepresentation by the accused-
petitioners during the grant of bail, High Court could not have 
s entertained respondent/informant's prayer by sitting in review 
of its judgment by entertaining miscellaneous petition -
judgment and order passed by High Court is set aside. 
Hari Singh Mann v. Harbhajan Singh Bajwa 2000 (4) 
C Suppl. SCR 313 = (2001) 1 SCC 169; Bay Berry Apartments 
(P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Shobha and Ors. 2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 
738 = (2006) 13 SCC 737, UP. State Brassware Corporation 
Ltd. and Anr. v. Uday Narain Pandey (2006) 1 SCC 479; and 
Rash mi Rekha Thatoi and Anr. v. State of Orissa and Ors., 
2012 (5) SCR 674 = (2012) 5 sec 690 - relied on. 
D 
Raghubir Singh and Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar 1987 eriLJ 
157; 
Gurcharan Singh and 
Ors. 
v. 
State 
(Delhi 
Administration) 1978 (2) SCR 358 = (1978) 1 sec 118; 
Puran v. Rambilas and Anr., (2001) 6 SCC 318; Dr. Narendra 
E K. Amin v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 2008 (6) SeR 1149 = 
(2008) 13 sec 584, Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. and Ors. 
2013 (12) SCALE 190; Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 2012 
(8) SCR753 = (2012) 10 SCC 303; Central Bureau of 
Investigation v. V. Vijay Sai Reddy, (2013) 7 SCC 452 -
F referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1987 CriLJ 157 
referred to 
para 18 
1978 (2) SCR 358 
referred to 
para 18 
G 
(2001) 6 sec 318 
referred to 
para 21 
2008 (6) SCR 1149 
referred to 
para 21 
2013 (12) SCALE 190 
referred to 
para 22 
H 
ABDUL BASIT @ RAJU v. MD. ABDUL KADIR 
573 
CHAUDHARY 
2000 (4) Suppl. SCR 313 relied on 
para 26 
2012 (8) SCR 753 
referred to 
para 27 
(2013) 1 sec 452 
referred to 
para 28 
2006 (7) Suppl. SCR 738 relied on 
para 29 
(2006) 1 sec 479 
relied on 
para 29 
2012 (5) SCR 674 
relied on 
para 29 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: SLP (Criminal) 
Nos. 6855-57 of 2013. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 16.07.2013 in CRLMC 
No. 226/2013 in BA No. 654~2013, CRLMC No. 227/2013 in 
BA No. 664/2013 and CRLMC No. 228 in BA No. 593/2013 
A 
B 
c 
of the High Court of Gauhati at Guwahati. 
D 
Nitin Sangra, V.D. Khanna, Satyajit Saha, Subash Bisv1as 
for the Petitioners. 
Vartika S. Walia (for Corporate Law Group), Shankar 
Divate for the Respondents. 
E 
The Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. These Special Leave Petitions arises out of the 
F 
judgement and order passed by the High Court of Gauhati at 
Guwahati in Crl. M.C. 226 of 2013 in B.A. No. 654 of 2013 (D/ 
o), dated 16.07.2013, whereby and whereunderthe High Court 
. has cancelled the bail granted to the petitioners herein by the 
High Court. 
G 
2. A succinct recapitulation of the facts in the instant case 
is: On the c
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.