Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 133 (MP)

Central Bureau of Narcotics v. Madhuri Shakya

2021-02-09

RAJEEV KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
1. The applicant Central Bureau of Narcotics has filed this application under section 439(2) of CrPC for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent Smt. Madhuri Shakya by this Court vide order dated 22.10.2019 passed in MCrC No. 43575/2019. 2. It is submitted by Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned counsel for the applicant that on 22.10.2019, this Court had granted bail to Smt. Madhuri Shakya. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that the Central Bureau of Narcotics was not heard and the mandatory compliance of section 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short “NDPS Act”) was not done. It is further submitted that provisions under section 37 of NDPS Act are mandatory which says that the Court is required to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent is not guilty of such offence and the respondent is not likely to commit any offence while being on bail. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the cases of Union of India v. Niyazuddin SK and another [ (2018) 13 SCC 738 ] and Union of India v. Ishdan Seikh @ Ishdan SK [2016 All SCR (Cri.) 1561]. Under these circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant prays for recall of the order dated 22.10.2019 passed in MCrC No.43575/2019 and for cancellation of bail granted to Smt. Madhuri Shakya by this Court. 3. Shri A.R. Shivhare, learned counsel for the respondentMadhuri Shakya has vehemently opposed the application and has submitted that while considering the bail application filed on behalf of the respondent- Madhuri Shakya, this Court had given sufficient opportunity of hearing to the State. The name of concerning counsel for Central Bureau of Narcotics was also reflected in the relevant cause list but the counsel was not present and Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State on 22.10.2019 and he advanced the arguments on behalf of the State. The name of concerning counsel for Central Bureau of Narcotics was also reflected in the relevant cause list but the counsel was not present and Shri Kshitiz Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor appeared on behalf of the State on 22.10.2019 and he advanced the arguments on behalf of the State. It is further submitted that the Court has also mentioned each relevant fact in the impugned order and after observing each and every fact of the case, the Court was satisfied that there was no reasonable ground for believing that the respondent was guilty of such offence and also there was no likelihood of commission of any offence by the respondent in case of grant of bail. It is also submitted that the substantive law is not repeatedly required to be mentioned in each and every order passed by the Court, and if any finding is given by the Court, it shall be presumed that the Court has analyzed the case on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case in connection with the relevant law. It is further submitted that as the matter relates to criminal law, therefore this Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. In support of aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble apex Court in the case of Abdulbasit @ Raju and others v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary and another [(2015) 1 SCC (Cri.) 257]. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that the order granting bail to the respondent was passed by this Court on 22.10.2019. Thereafter, no record has been brought by the prosecution before this Court which reflect that the respondent has committed any offence while being on bail. Hence, prays for rejection of present application filed under section 439(2) of CrPC for cancellation of bail. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record. 5. This Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. However, in my considered opinion, I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that under Criminal Law, this Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the available record. 5. This Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. However, in my considered opinion, I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that under Criminal Law, this Court is not having jurisdiction to review its own order. Moreover, this fact is also worth consideration that from the date of passing of order granting bail to the respondent, i.e. 22.10.2019 till date, the prosecution has not brought to the knowledge of this Court that the respondent has committed any offence while being on bail. 6. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is not inclined to allow the present application filed under section 439(2) of CrPC. Accordingly, this application being devoid of merits is hereby rejected. Praveen Newaskar for applicant; A.R. Shivhare for respondent.