UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANJEEV CHANDRA AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. S. Tripathi, J. This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 by Addl. Sessions Judge (Special Judge N. D. P. S.) Varanasi vide order dated 15-3-2003 in Bail Application Number-44 of 2003 under Section 9-A/25-A of N. D. P. S. Act. According to the applicant, Union of India the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 were found selling Acetic Anhydride, which is declared controlled substance under the provisions of the Section 2 (viia) of the said Act as the same can be used in manufacturing Heroine and Methaqualone. According to the Union of India, learned Sessions Judge while passing impugned order has not considered the gravity of the offence as well as statements of the opposite parties recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act and has also ignored the provisions of Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act and has wrongly granted bail giving reason on the ground of illness, detention and running of business since long. This application for cancellation of bail is opposed on the ground that the learned Special Judge has committed no error in passing the order granting bail as the Court has satisfied itself with the contention raised from the side of the opposite parties and it is also contended from the side of the opposite parties that the grant of bail was discretionary matter and the learned Sessions Judge has exercised his discretion in favour of the opposite parties thus, there is no good ground for moving application for cancellation of bail.

(2.) I have heard Counsel for both the parties and have also gone through the records.

(3.) IT is argued from the side of the applicant, Union of India that the order granting bail to the accused- persons opposite parties is perverse as non-fulfilment of requirements of provisions of Section 37 of the N. D. P. S. Act has not at all been considered and also that statements recorded under Section 67 of N. D. P. S. Act have not been considered. Documents available in the form of memo of recovery and statements of opposite parties were wrongly not considered by the learned Sessions Judge hence bail should be cancelled. These arguments are opposed on the ground that learned Special Judge is considered each and every thing and once he has exercised the discretion which granting bail the same cannot be cancelled at this stage.