MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition has been filed under Sec. 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the order dtd. 14/3/2023 passed by the learned ASJ-02, South-East District, Saket District Courts, Delhi, whereby the learned ASJ while exercising its revisional jurisdiction set aside the order of the learned MM dtd. 15/9/2022 and 12/10/2022 whereby the petitioner was summoned and granted bail.

(2.) Mr. Manu Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order, on the face of it, is not sustainable as no notice was issued to the petitioner in the present case. Learned counsel submits that even the petitioner was not made a party by the State. Learned counsel submits that the revisional jurisdiction is a concurrent jurisdiction to be exercised by the High Court/Sessions Court. Learned counsel submits that Sec. 401 (2) Cr.P.C. specifically provides that no order under this Sec. shall be made to the prejudice of the accused or other person unless he has had an opportunity of being heard either personally or by pleader in his own defence.

(3.) Mr. Manu Sharma has further invited the attention of this court to Sec. 399 sub Sec. (2) which provides that the provisions of Sec. 401 (2) shall pari materia apply to the Sessions Judge exercising power of revision. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed without issuing notice to the petitioner herein who is being prejudiced on account of his cancellation of bail. Ld. Counsel thus submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law.