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. 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. {Para 13}
14. 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. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
(Before Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.)
CRM-M-58257-2024
Pritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others
Decided on February 13, 2025
Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 1014
Print Page