VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT -

(2.) I have heard the parties. In the present case, the challenge to the impugned order is only that having once dismissed the application for cancellation of bail, the Trial Court was not left with the jurisdiction, review its order and to restore the said application. The Counsel submits, that the reasons for restoration are also erroneous. The reason given in the order mainly is that in order to adjudicate upon the application under Section 340, Criminal Procedure Code, the application for cancellation of bail should be kept alive. This reason does not appear to be well founded in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amuanullah Quareshi v. Union of India, reported as (1992) 3 SCC 178, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with approval has quoted its observations in the case of K. Karunakaran v. T.V. Eachara Worrier, reported as (1978) 2 SCC 18, which read as under: