In Re: Harihar Mondal and Another

Mr. Sanyal has filed an application for recall of the order dated 21st July, 1997 which was presented u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlargement of the accused person on bail. It is manifest from the order passed by ourselves that upon consideration of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and also after perusal of the case Diary we rejected the prayer for ball. There is no bar under the law to repeat the prayer for bail so long the accused person is in custody or is not enlarged on bail. In the circumstances, there can be no reason to recall the order passed by ourselves of the aforesaid date. Had there been an error of the court, certain by the court, in exercise of the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, can recall the order. There is no cleavage of opinion that a court cannot recall its own order by sitting upon its own judgment, once decided. The provisions for revision are available u/s 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Only power available to review the decision of the criminal court is u/s 482. But this case does not encompass that it verges on Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and, accordingly, we cannot persuade ourselves to agree to the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case for recall. If so advised, the petitioner can repeat his prayer for ball as it is the legitimate right of the person in custody to multiply the prayer for bail till he is let off.

Accordingly, this application does not merit any considerations, and the same is rejected.

Let plain copies of this order, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (court), be handed over to the learned advocates for the parties.