Dismissed¶24

Pramod Gupta v. State of Maharashtra through Kandivali Police Station

Bombay HC27 Jun 2025APPLN/129/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cancellation of bail; Section 439(2) Cr.P.C.; maintainability; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; Criminal Application No.129 of 2024; Sessions Court bail order challenged on legality/correctness; no post-bail misuse, breach of conditions or supervening circumstances alleged; proper remedy is revision or writ petition; application rejected as not maintainable (27 June 2025); advocate Girish M. Agarwal for applicant.

What did the court decide?

None; the applicant was clarified to be at liberty to adopt such other remedies as may be available in law, including filing a revision or a writ petition, if so advised. ¶24

Pramod Gupta vs State of Maharashtra through Kandivali Police… — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the applicant was clarified to be at liberty to adopt such other remedies as may be available in law, including filing a revision or a writ petition, if so advised.

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether an application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of bail is maintainable where the grievance is not any post-bail misconduct or supervening circumstance but the alleged illegality of the Sessions Court's bail order itself. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is ordinarily justified where (i) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, (ii) has violated the conditions imposed while granting bail, or (iii) there are supervening circumstances which make his continued release on bail prejudicial to the fair trial or the interest of justice.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

Where the applicant's grievance rests not on any subsequent event or breach of condition after bail was granted but on the contention that the bail order itself ought not to have been granted, such a challenge does not strictly fall within Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., which is limited to cancellation of bail on post-bail conduct or changed circumstances.

¶22

Key takeaways

If the challenge is not to any supervening event but to the bail order itself as being erroneous or illegal, the proper course is to invoke the revisional or writ jurisdiction of the High Court, where the legality, propriety, or correctness of the order can be examined.ratio¶23
The present application, being a challenge to the correctness of the bail order rather than a case for cancellation on post-bail conduct or changed circumstances, is not maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Code.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction (Amit Borkar, J.), Criminal Application No.129 of 2024, decided 27-06-2025: An application under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking cancellation of bail is not maintainable where the applicant's grievance is not misuse of liberty by the accused, violation of bail conditions, or supervening circumstances prejudicial to the fair trial or the interest of justice, but a challenge to the legality and correctness of the Sessions Court's bail order itself; for such a challenge the proper course is to invoke the revisional or writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Application rejected as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue revision or writ proceedings.

¶1

20-appln129-2024.doc

¶2

VRJ

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.129 OF 2024

VAIBHAV

RAMESH

JADHAV

Digitally signed byVAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2025.06.27 14:41:00 +0530

¶9

Pramod Gupta … Applicant V/s.

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

¶11

Mr. Girish M. Agarwal for the applicant.

¶12

Ms. Mahalaxmi Ganapathy, APP for the State. Mr. Vaiibhav Parab for respondent No.2.

¶13

Mr. Chavan R. K., Pairavi Officer, Kandivali Police Station is present.

¶14

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶15

DATED : JUNE 27, 2025

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

The present application is filed by the applicant for cancellation of bail, essentially challenging the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Sessions Court whereby bail has been granted to the accused.

¶18

At the outset, it is necessary to refer to the scope and ambit of Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This provision empowers the High Court or the Court of Sessions to cancel bail granted to an accused person, provided certain conditions are satisfied. The cancellation of bail under this section is ordinarily justified if (i) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (ii) has violated the conditions imposed while

¶19

¶20

20-appln129-2024.doc

¶21

granting bail; or (iii) there are supervening circumstances which make his continued release on bail prejudicial to the fair trial or the interest of justice.

¶22

However, in the present case, the grievance of the applicant is not based on any subsequent event or breach of condition by the accused after bail was granted. Rather, the applicant seeks to challenge the correctness of the bail order itself on the ground that the same ought not to have been granted. Such a challenge does not strictly fall within the ambit of Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., which is limited to cancellation of bail on post-bail conduct or changed circumstances.

¶23

It is well-settled that if the challenge is not to any supervening event but to the bail order itself as being erroneous or illegal, the proper course is to invoke the revisional or writ jurisdiction of the High Court, where the legality, propriety, or correctness of the order can be examined. In such a situation, the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is not the appropriate remedy. In view of the settled legal position, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present application is not maintainable under Section 439(2) of the Code.

¶24

Accordingly, the application is rejected as not maintainable. However, it is made clear that the applicant is at liberty to adopt such other remedies as may be available in law, including filing a revision or a writ petition, if so advised.

¶25

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶26

Pramod Gupta v. State of Maharashtra through Kandivali Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Gupta v. State of Maharashtra through Kandivali Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jatin Sethi vs Mahesh Premchand Pandey

Abrar Ahmed Mukhtar Shah @ Ashfaq Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra

New Jalpari Chs Ltd. vs M/S. Sudama Estate Agency and Ors.

Shree Jagruti Co. Operative Housing Soc Ltd. and Anr. vs Triumph Urban Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Inez Tower a Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra through Ministry of Cooperation and Ors.

Irshad Israil Khan @ Bunty vs State of Maharashtra