V.K.GUPTA,C.J. - (1.) ON 13.2.2001, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge. Singhbhum East at Jamshedpur, had passed an order granting bail to the petitioner on the basis of certain observations that he had made in that order. Apparently, feeling aggrieved, the informant moved a petition under Sub -section (2) of Section 439. Cr PC for cancellation of bail subsequent to the passing of the aforesaid bail order and vide order, dated 1.5.2001, learned 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge cancelled the bail (as had been earlier granted vide aforesaid order, dated 13.2.2001). It is against the subsequent order, dated 1.5.2001 that the petitioner -accused has filed the present petition under Section 482, Cr PC in this Court.
(2.) I have perused both the orders passed on 13.2.2001 and 1.5.2001. Undoubtedly, it appears that when the application under Section 439(2), Cr PC was filed for cancellation of bail, the Presiding Officer of the learned Court below, who had passed the order on 13.2.2001 had, on transfer, been replaced and it is the new Presiding Officer, who has passed the second order, dated 1.5.2001, which is under challenge in this petition. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at great length, I am clearly of opinion that in the exercise of the power under Sub -section (2) of Section 439, Cr PC in the facts and circumstances of this case, it was not legally permissible for the learned Court, below to have cancelled the bail earlier granted by the Court, vide order, dated 13.2.2001. The exercise of power under Subsection (2) of Section 439 is dependable on certain developments and circumstances which take place after grant of bail, or occurrence of certain facts which give rise to some cause or apprehension in the mind of the prosecution, the informant or de facto complaint that the bail as granted earlier should be cancelled. For instance, if the accused enjoying the privilege of bail is alleged to be indulging in acts which amount to misuse of this privilege, or is trying to influence the witnesses or the out -come of the investigation or the trial and so on and so forth. This power, however, cannot be exercised by way of reviewing an order passed by the Court earlier. Sub -section (2) of Section 439 does not give to the Court the power to recall or review its own order. A perusal of the detailed and comprehensive order passed on 1.5.2001, even while supported by various facts and circumstances as stated therein, clearly suggests that the learned Court below was apparently exercising, in the guise of the power under Sub -section (2) of Section 439, the power actually of reviewing the earlier order, dated 13.2.2001. No new facts were brought to the notice of the Court. It was not the case of the informant that any fresh development had taken place or that the accused - petitioner was misusing the privilege of bail. The exercise of such jurisdiction, therefore, while passing the order, dated 1.5.2001 was wholly impermissible in law.
(3.) EVEN while I am disapproving the passing of the impugned order, dated 1.5.2001, I cannot help taking notice of the facts of this case as have been highlighted in both the orders, dated 13.2.2001 and 1.5.2001. In the facts and circumstances of this case, but without offering any further comments lest these comments tend to cause prejudice to the outcome of the trial. I am of the opinion that the learned Court below passed a patently illegal and erroneous order on 13.2.2001 by granting bail to the petitioner -accused. While; therefore, deciding to assume my suo motu criminal revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 397. Cr PC. I have heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. B.M. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the informant and Mr. I.N. Gupta, learned counsel appear -ing for the State. I actually indicated to Mr. Sinha that I propose to exercise and assume this suo motu jurisdiction and accordingly Mr. Sinha made submissions with regard to that aspect of the case and he also referred to two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Subhendu Mishra v. Subrat Kumar Miah -ra and Anr. 1999 Cri LJ 4063 and Dolat Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana. 1995 SCC (Cri) 237. According to Mr. Sinha, the facts and circumstances of this case do not warrant my exercising revisional jurisdiction and upsetting the order, dated 13.2.2001 because the learned Court below was justified in granting bail to the petitioner and that circumstances did not exist which called for setting -aside the aforesaid order.;