Disposed¶5

Xyz v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Jan 2025APPLN/215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Scope of Section 439 Cr.P.C.; Section 439 cannot be used to set aside or judicially review a bail order granted by another court; statutory power confined to four corners of statute; proper remedy for grievances against grant of bail is proceedings before competent court or forum; bail order challenge; extraneous material in bail order; Bombay High Court; Amit Borkar, J.; Criminal Application No. 215 of 2024; State of Maharashtra; Rashmi Rekha Thatoi (2012) 5 SCC 690; Bay Berry Apartments (2006) 13 SCC 737; U.P. State Brassware (2006) 1 SCC 479.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; the application was disposed of without going into the merits of the allegations, with all questions kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings. ¶5

Xyz vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; the application was disposed of without going into the merits of the allegations, with all questions kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings.

¶5

Issue for consideration

Whether the power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. extends to setting aside, or exercising judicial review over, the correctness or legality of an order granting bail passed by another court. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

The scope of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is confined to consideration of a bail application on its own merits; it does not extend to exercising a judicial review of the correctness or legality of an order passed by another court granting bail.

¶3

Ratio / Principle

Any challenge to a bail order, if permissible in law, must be brought before the appropriate forum by adopting the correct legal procedure.

¶3

Key takeaways

Legitimate grievances regarding the manner in which bail was granted cannot be addressed in proceedings under Section 439 Cr.P.C.; the proper remedy is to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent court or forum to challenge the impugned order of bail.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Amit Borkar, J.), in Criminal Application No. 215 of 2024 (decided 3 September 2025), held that the power under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is confined to consideration of a bail application on its own merits and does not extend to judicial review of the correctness or legality of a bail order passed by another court. Relying on the Supreme Court's observations in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of Orissa, (2012) 5 SCC 690, and noting similar principles in Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd. v. Shobha, (2006) 13 SCC 737, and U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479, the Court held that statutory power must be exercised within the four corners of the statute, and that an applicant aggrieved by the manner of grant of bail must challenge it before the competent forum by adopting the correct legal procedure. The application was disposed of without examining the merits, with all questions kept open.

¶1

69 APPLN 215-24.doc

¶2

Ashish

¶3

ASHISHSAHEBRAOMHASKE Digitally signed byASHISH SAHEBRAOMHASKEDate: 2025.09.0318:30:07 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 215 OF 2024

¶6

XYZ … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra and ors … Respondents

¶7

Mr. Viral Rathod a/w Mr. Vishwatej R. Jadhav for the applicant.

¶8

Mrs. Megha Bajoria, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr. Satish Thorat, PSI, Kurla Police Station.

¶9

CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶10

DATED : SEPTEMBER 3, 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The applicant has approached this Court challenging the order by which the opponent has been granted bail. The grievance of the applicant is that while granting bail, the concerned court has relied upon certain material which, according to the applicant, was wholly extraneous and irrelevant for deciding the question of bail. It is further alleged that certain material which was relevant and necessary for a just decision of the matter was either ignored or not considered at all.

¶13

In this context, it is necessary to note the observations of the Supreme Court in Rashmi Rekha Thatoi v. State of Orissa, (2012) 5 SCC 690. The Apex Court in paragraph 37 has held that a court of

¶14

¶15

69 APPLN 215-24.doc

¶16

law must act strictly within the scope and limits of the power conferred upon it by statute, and cannot travel beyond such limits. What cannot be done directly under the law cannot be permitted to be done indirectly by invoking some other form of jurisdiction. When a statute confers a specific power, the exercise of that power must be within the four corners of that statute. The exercise of statutory power is distinct from the exercise of the power of judicial review, which is available in a limited and different sphere. Similar principles have been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd. v. Shobha, (2006) 13 SCC 737, and U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479.

¶17

In the present case, the applicant has invoked Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking to set aside the bail order passed in favour of the opponent. However, this Court is of the opinion that the scope of powers under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is confined to consideration of a bail application on its own merits. It does not extend to exercising a judicial review of the correctness or legality of an order passed by another court granting bail. Such a challenge, if permissible in law, must be brought before the appropriate forum by adopting the correct legal procedure.

¶18

Therefore, while the applicant may have legitimate grievances about the manner in which the bail was granted, those grievances cannot be addressed in the present proceedings under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The proper remedy for the applicant would be to initiate appropriate proceedings before the competent court or forum to challenge the impugned order of bail on the grounds

69 APPLN 215-24.doc

available in law.

In view of the above discussion, and without going into the merits of the allegations raised in the application, all questions are kept open to be urged in appropriate proceedings. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of in the above terms.

¶23

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶24

Xyz v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xyz v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Madhukar Karu Kadlak vs Grievance Redressal Committee - Mumbai Suburbs

The Chairman/ Secretary, Jai Mangal Moorti Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs the Assistant Registrar, Co-Operative Societies , S Ward and Ors.

Nitin Madhusudan Raut vs Smt. Sharayu Madhusudan Raut and Ors.

Bhutali Shattu Vijaymane vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Executive Engineer Urmod Dam Division vs Tatyaba Baburao Bhosale and Ors.

Executive Engineer, Urmodi Dam Division, Satara vs Sahebrao Laxman Bhosale Decd Thru Lhrs and Anr.