Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition filed by Vitthal Damuji Meher against its judgment dated 28.08.2024 in Criminal Appeal No.3573 of 2024, which had set aside the bail granted to him by the High Court and directed him to surrender within three weeks. The petitioner sought review on grounds that observations in paragraph 26 of the judgment were incorrect, that the phrase 'later period or change in circumstances' was vague, that relevant precedents were not considered, that the principle 'bail is rule, jail is exception' was ignored, and that all other arrested co-accused had been granted bail. The Court, applying the principles from Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362, held that a review petition is not an appeal in disguise and must be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court noted that the petitioner was incarcerated for only about 5.5 months, which could not be considered a significant period, and distinguished Union of India v K A Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713. It further held that grant of bail to co-accused does not automatically entitle the petitioner to bail, as each case must be judged on its own facts. The Court also observed that the judgment under review had already considered the petitioner's role and the chargesheet, and had directed appropriate medical care and left open the option for the petitioner to apply for bail afresh, which could be considered on its own merits without being inhibited by observations in the judgment. Finding no error apparent on record, the Court dismissed the review petition and rejected related miscellaneous applications.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Review Petition - Error Apparent on Record - Review petition dismissed as no error apparent on record; mere dissatisfaction with findings or desire for re-argument not sufficient - Principles from Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362 applied (Paras 2-7). B) Bail - Cancellation of Bail - Co-accused Parity - Grant of bail to co-accused does not ipso facto entitle another accused to bail; each case judged on its own facts - Petitioner's incarceration of 5.5 months not significant period - Union of India v K A Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713 distinguished (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Procedure - Bail - Fresh Bail Application - Court while cancelling bail left open option for petitioner to apply afresh; trial court and High Court directed to consider without being inhibited by observations in the judgment - Discretion of lower courts untouched (Para 6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 28.08.2024 cancelling bail.
Final Decision
Review petition dismissed. Miscellaneous applications rejected.
Law Points
- Review petition limited to error apparent on record
- not re-argument
- Bail cancellation does not require significant incarceration
- Co-accused parity not automatic
- Judgment not to be read as statute
