Read Judgment: Bimal Kumar Jain vs. Directorate of Enforcement

Pankaj Bajpai

New Delhi, September  27, 2021: The Delhi High Court has ruled that application filed u/s 482 of CrPC to recall observations made in bail order is not maintainable in light of express bar u/s 362 of CrPC.

While dismissing the application, the Single Bench of Justice Yogesh Khanna observed that the ASG submitted before the start of the arguments that Court had become functus officio after rendering the judgment in the bail application and hence the bar of Section 362 CrPC would operate.

Going by the background of the case, the applications were filed u/s 482 Cr.P.C to recall the observations, which were prone to be misconstrued and may result in a miscarriage of justice being contrary to several judgments rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of Court, clearly laying down the ratio decidendi  that neither have the twin conditions for bail u/s 45 of PMLA revived after having been declared as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Nikesh Tarachand Shah vs. Union of India & Anr.

The petitioner submitted that it was an application not for recalling of the order but of observations made in the bail order.

The reliance placed by the applicant/petitioner on the decisions of the Supreme Court in cases of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Krishna Kumar Pandey, as well as State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar is to state that inherent powers of the Court u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. are saved by Section 362 of Cr.P.C, observed Justice Khanna.

However, the High Court noted that in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Case (supra) , the petitioner was ex parte/not heard.

At the same time, Justice Khanna noted that the case of Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar(supra) rather carved out certain exceptions to the operation of the bar u/s 362 Cr.P.C.

These exceptions, no way apply to the facts of the present case and hence the present application is not maintainable in light of the express bar u/s 362 of the Cr.P.C, added Justice Khanna.

The High Court therefore, dismissed the applications in light of the express bar u/s 362 of the CrPC.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment