for opposing bail which is filed on grounds of u/s 309(2)crpc

You have not posted the material facts.

Greetings, if I understand your question right you may refer to the case of - 

1. Raghubir Singh and Others v. State of Bihar 1986 SCC 4 481 - Section 309(2) merely enables the court to “remand the accused if in custody”. It does not empower the court to remand the accused if he is on bail. It does not enable the court to “cancel bail” as it were. That can only be done under Section 437(5) and Section 439(2).

2. State through CBI v. Dawood Ibrahim and Others 1997 ACR SC 21 806 - “accused if in custody” appearing in Section 309(2) refer and relate to an accused who was before the Court when cognizance was taken or when enquiry or trial was being held in respect of him and not to an accused who is subsequently arrested in course of further investigation. So far as the accused in the first category is concerned he can be remanded to judicial custody only in view of Section 309(2), but he who comes under the second category will be governed by Section 167 so long as further investigation continues. That necessarily means that in respect of the latter the Court which had taken cognizance of the offence may exercise its power to detain him in police custody, subject to the fulfilment of the requirements and the limitation of Section 167.

3. Mithabhai Pashabhai Patel v. State of Gujarat 2009 6 SCC 332 is a landmark judgement  in this regard which might help provide deeper understanding.  

Even if the cases are not directly related, they may prove useful in developing a tailor made argument for your case, the details of which are minimum in the query. 

Hope this helps.