Sultan Singh Dhakad vs Makhan Singh Argal
2021 Latest Caselaw 5473 MP

         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 )

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'