YADAV, J. - (1.) THE present misc. petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P. C. is preferred for recalling order dated 13. 11. 2000 passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court in SB Cr. Misc. Cancellation of Bail Petition No. 532/2000, State of Rajasthan vs. Mehfooz, whereby bail granted to the petitioner by the same Coordinate bench dated 10. 4. 98 in S. B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 1643/98, in connection with FIR No. 21/98, dated 4. 2. 98, registered at Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur, for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 341 and 302 IPC has been cancelled on the ground that the accused petitioner is tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri B. L. Sharma as well as the learned Public Prosecutor, Shri S. S. Rathore assisted by Shri S. L. Yadav. When the present petition, moved under Section 482 Cr. P. C. was placed before the learned Single Judge, he ordered to list this matter before another bench. Hon'ble the Chief Justice nominated this bench to dispose of the present misc. petition, this is how it is listed before me. I am of the view that once bail granted under Sec. 439 Cr. P. C. is cancelled u/sec. 439 (2) Cr. P. C. by one Coordinate bench of this Court, then, such order cannot be altered or reviewed by this Court within the meaning of Sec. 362 Cr. P. C. which provides that save as otherwise provided by Cr. P. C. or by any other law for the time being in force, no Court, when it has signed its judgment or final order disposing of a case, shall alter or review the same, except to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Sharma that the order passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. cancelling the bail order already granted does not fall within the ambit of judgment or final order. It is further submitted that it is settled principle of law that once the bail order is refused, the accused petitioner is entitled to move successive bail application. Therefore, by the same corollary of reason cancellation of bail order passed under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. , does not fall within the meaning of Section 362 Cr. P. C. , attracting the concept of altering or reviewing such order. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for accused applicant is not palatable to me for the reasons that the mandatory provisions of Section 362 Cr. P. C. are based on an acknowledged principle of law that once a matter is finally disposed of by a court exercising jurisdiction in criminal side the said court in absence of specific statutory provisions becomes functus officio and disentitled to entertain fresh prayer on the same relief or relief inconsistent to the relief already granted, within the meaning of section 40 of Evidence Act. The Court becomes functus officio, the moment a bail cancellation order passed under Section 439 (2) Cr. P. C. is signed. Such order cannot be altered except to the extent of correcting a clerical or arithmetical error in the garb of Section 482 Cr. P. C.
(3.) FROM the reasons stated hereinabove, I am of the view that once bail granted to the accused applicant was cancelled by a Coordinate bench of this Court vide its order dated 13. 11. 2000, the present application for altering and reviewing the aforesaid order dated 13. 11. 2000, is not maintainable within the meaning of Section 362 Cr. P. C. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the application for altering or reviewing the order passed by the Coordinate bench of this Court dated 13. 11. 2000, cancelling the bail order granted to the accused applicant, is hereby rejected as not maintainable. .;