Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shri Milind Shahstrabudhe vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 7 October, 2015
MCRC-13106-2015
(SHRI MILIND SHAHSTRABUDHE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
07-10-2015
Shri Ankit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant.
Smt. Jhanwi Pandit, learned Public Prosecutor for
respondent/ State.
Shri Anil Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Pallawi Khare, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.
Heard.
This application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 26.6.2015 passed in M.Cr. C. No.9446/2015.
It is contended by the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the applicant, which is bank that certain facts have not been considered by the Court while granting the bail. It is further contended that applicant did not follow the procedure at the time of sanction of the loan.
The Court has considered the facts in detail and recorded prima-facie findings that there is no evidence to the effect that how the Manager of the Bank was responsible for disbursement of loan and in accordance with scheme such papers were prepared by the Society Manager and Committee.;
The Supreme Court in the matter of Abdul Basit @ Raju and others Vs. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 754 has held in regard to principle of cancellation of bail, as under:
"The concept of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order granting bail is different from the concept of cancellation of bail on the ground of accused's misconduct or new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which require such cancellation and a perusal of the decisions of the Supreme Court would show that an order granting bail can only be set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the court superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the same Court.
It is an accepted principle of law that when a matter has been finally disposed of by a court, the court is, in the absence of direction statutory provision, functus officio and cannot entertain a fresh prayer for relief in the matter unless and until the previous order of final disposal has been set aside or modified to that extent. It is also settled law that the judgment and order granting bail cannot be reviewed by the court passing such judgment and order in the absence of any express provision in in Cr.P.C. for the same. Section 362 of Cr. P. C. operates as a bar to any alteration or review of the cases disposed of by the Court. Th;e singular exception to the said statutory bar is correction of electrical or arithmetical error by the Court."
In the present case applicant prays for cancellation of bail on merits.
In my opinion, it is not permissible. There is a allegation that the respondent No.2/ accused is not cooperated in the investigation. Respondent No.2/ accused is directed to cooperate in the investigation.
With the aforesaid observation, petition is disposed of.
(S.K. GANGELE) JUDGE kkc