Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order

When a Miscarriage of Justice Occurs Due to an Official’s Error, Courts Must Intervene to Correct It – Punjab & Haryana High Court upheld the recall of an anticipatory bail rejection order, ruling that when an order is passed due to an inadvertent error by an official, the court is duty-bound to correct it to prevent injustice. While reaffirming that criminal courts generally lack the power to review or recall their orders, the Court emphasized that exceptions arise when procedural lapses lead to a denial of fair hearing.

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul, dismissing a petition challenging the recall of a bail rejection order in Pritpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. (CRM-M-58257-2024), observed, "The law may not explicitly permit criminal courts to recall their orders, but when justice is at stake due to an error beyond the control of the accused, the court cannot remain a mute spectator."

The Court held that while procedural rigidity is necessary to uphold legal certainty, rigid application of rules cannot defeat justice, especially when an order is based on misinformation supplied by an investigating agency.

The dispute arose from FIR No. 120 dated 28.09.2024, registered under Sections 420 (Cheating) and 120-B (Criminal Conspiracy) of the IPC at Police Station E-Division, Amritsar. The petitioner, Pritpal Singh, alleged that the private respondents had engaged in fraudulent dealings by executing an agreement to sell a commercial property, accepting an earnest money deposit of ₹52 lakhs, and subsequently refusing to honor the transaction.

The private respondents, accused in the case, initially obtained interim anticipatory bail on 07.10.2024, subject to the condition that they join the investigation within seven days. However, when the case was taken up for final disposal on 16.10.2024, the Trial Court dismissed their anticipatory bail plea, allegedly because they had failed to comply with the order to join the investigation.

The very next day, the accused moved a fresh application for anticipatory bail, stating that the rejection was based on an incorrect representation by a police officer. The Trial Court, after reviewing the records, realized that an investigating officer had erroneously informed the court that the accused had failed to appear for investigation, when in fact, they had complied with the order. Finding that the earlier rejection was influenced by this factual misrepresentation, the Trial Court recalled its rejection order and granted anticipatory bail.

Challenging this decision, the petitioner argued before the High Court that a criminal court has no inherent power to recall its own order, except to correct clerical errors, and that once anticipatory bail had been denied, the only remedy available was to approach the higher court in appeal.

Addressing the core legal issue, the High Court acknowledged the well-settled principle that criminal courts lack the power to review or recall their orders, except in cases involving clerical or typographical errors. However, it held that this principle cannot be applied rigidly where an order is passed under mistaken facts, particularly due to errors by an investigating agency that deprive the accused of a fair hearing.

Justice Kaul observed, "Courts exist to dispense justice, not merely to adhere to technicalities. If an order is passed based on a factual misrepresentation by the prosecution, and the accused is denied a fair opportunity to be heard, the court has an inherent duty to correct such an injustice."

The Court took note of the fact that the rejection of anticipatory bail on 16.10.2024 was a direct consequence of an incorrect statement made by a police official, who had wrongly informed the Trial Court that the accused had failed to comply with the investigation order. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Amritsar, later submitted an affidavit admitting that the statement was erroneous and resulted from a bona fide mistake.

Relying on this admission, the High Court held that the Trial Court’s recall of its own order was not an act of reviewing its judicial determination, but rather a necessary rectification of an injustice caused by an administrative lapse.

The Court strongly reaffirmed the principle that every accused has a fundamental right to a fair hearing, and any procedural irregularity that results in an unfair outcome must be remedied. It noted that the private respondents were not at fault for the misinformation provided to the Trial Court and that their rejection order was not based on an actual failure to comply with investigation directives, but on a procedural lapse attributable to a police officer’s misstatement.

Referring to State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770, the Court emphasized that courts should not interfere with bail orders unless they suffer from gross illegality, fraud, or a perverse exercise of jurisdiction. It further observed, "Justice cannot be sacrificed at the altar of procedural technicalities, especially when the error is not on the part of the accused but an external agency."

Rejecting the petitioner’s argument that the Trial Court exercised review jurisdiction, which is impermissible in criminal law, the High Court clarified that the recall of the order did not amount to a review of judicial findings, but was a rectification of a manifest error caused by an incorrect factual submission.

Justice Kaul observed, "The law draws a distinction between reviewing a judicial decision and correcting an order that has been influenced by an extraneous mistake. The latter is not only permissible but necessary to uphold the integrity of judicial proceedings."

The Court distinguished this case from those where recall is sought merely for reconsideration, holding that "this is not a case where the court revisited the merits of its own decision; rather, it was a case where the previous decision was premised on an incorrect factual foundation, making correction imperative."

Dismissing the petition seeking cancellation of bail, the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision to recall its own order, ruling that the rectification of a procedural injustice cannot be equated with an impermissible review of a judicial order. It concluded, "The recall of the earlier order was not an overreach, but an exercise in judicial fairness necessitated by an error beyond the accused’s control. Courts must always retain the power to correct an injustice when it is brought to their notice."

The ruling reaffirms that the rigid application of procedural rules must give way when fairness demands intervention. The Court’s reasoning makes it clear that while recall powers in criminal proceedings are limited, they are not entirely non-existent, particularly in cases where orders have been passed under mistaken facts due to no fault of the accused.

This judgment serves as a significant precedent, ensuring that procedural technicalities do not become instruments of injustice and that courts retain the necessary flexibility to correct errors that would otherwise lead to an unfair outcome.

Date of decision: 13/02/2025