Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sultan Singh Dhakad vs Makhan Singh Argal on 15 September, 2021
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
Bench: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
BENCH AT GWALIOR
M.Cr.C. No. 670/2020
( Sultan Singh Dhakad Vs. Makhan Singh Argal and another )
(1)
Gwalior, dated : 15/9/2021
Shri B.S.Dhakad, Advocate for the applicant.
Shri Yash Sharma, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Shri P.P.S.Bajeeta, Public Prosecutor for the respondent no.2/State.
I.A. No.27527/2021, an application for urgent hearing is allowed.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties. This application, under section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C., has been filed seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.1 vide order dated 3/12/2019 passed in M.Cr.C. No.46997/2019.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the anticipatory bail was procured by respondent no.1 by suppression and misrepresentation of facts. It is submitted that the alleged mutation order dated 28/4/2014 is based on the Will of late Chimman dated 20/4/2010. Respondent no.1 had manipulated the revenue records illegally without having any authority and, therefore, it was not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and the same ought to have been rejected. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State of Gujarat and another ((2016)1 SCC 152) to contend that this Court has powers to recall its order.
On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR M.Cr.C. No. 670/2020 ( Sultan Singh Dhakad Vs. Makhan Singh Argal and another ) (2) submitted that events/violations of conditions subsequent to grant of bail are only to be looked into while considering the application for cancellation of bail. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Basit Vs. Abdul Kadir Choudhary ((2014)10 SCC 754) wherein the Apex Court has held that the High Court could not have entertained the said petition and cancelled bail on the ground of it being perverse in law. It is settled law that judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by Court passing such judgment and order in absence of any express provision in Code for same. Since, no express provision for review of order granting bail exists under Code, High Court becomes functus officio and Section 362 of the Code applies barring review of judgment and order of Court granting bail to accused.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds substantial force in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for respondent no.1. In absence of any allegation with regard to violation of bail conditions, this Court does not find it a fit case to be entertained.
The application sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(S.A.Dharmadhikari) Judge (and) ANAND SHRIVASTA VA 2021.09.16 10:15:35 +05'30'