Back
2023 Supreme(All) 2807
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJEEV MISRA, J.
Grijesh Pandey - Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. - Opposite Party
CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO. 28727 OF 2013.
Decided On : 25-07-2023
For the Applicant : Nandit K. Srivastava,Ashish Srivastava, Atul Srivastava, Imranullah.
For the Opposite Party :Govt. Advocate, Anurag Khanna.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 362 - Modification of bail order - The applicant sought modification of a bail order claiming compliance with conditions, yet faced difficulty securing local sureties due to circumstances including the death of a surety - Opposing counsel argued for rejection based on jurisdictional limitations of the court under Section 362 - Jurisprudential precedent established that modification of bail orders post-decision is not permissible under the Code. (Paras 3, 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The applicant originally secured bail in 2013 for charges under various sections of the IPC and Prevention of Corruption Act. He subsequently complied with imposed conditions but sought modification due to the death of a surety and difficulties in obtaining new ones.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the applicant’s modification request citing established legal principles barring modification of its own bail decisions under Section 362 Cr.P.C.
Issues: The primary questions addressed were whether the court had jurisdiction to modify its prior bail order and the impact of the applicant's inability to secure local sureties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the principle that once a bail order is made, it cannot be modified by the issuing court due to Section 362's specific restrictions, reaffirming existing legal precedent.
Result: Modification application rejected.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. modification application filed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail modification. (Para 3 , 6) |
| 3. applicant's compliance with bail conditions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's limitations under section 362 cr.p.c. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. application rejected. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
Rajeev Misra, J.
Order on the Criminal Misc. Modification Application No. nil of 2023.
Heard Mr. Ashish Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.GA. for State and Mr. Gyan Prakash, the learned Senior Advocate, Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-2 i.e. C.B.I.
2. Perused the record.
3. This modification application has been filed by applicant seeking modification of the order dated 21.11.2013 passed by His Lordship Hon'ble R. D. Khare, J. in above-mentioned bail application. For ready reference the order dated 21.11.2013 is reproduced herein-under:-
" Heard learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is the husband of Proprietor of M/s Jai Ganesh Traders, 2/33, Sector-B, Priyadarshani Colony, Sitapur Road, Lucknow.
Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court to annexure-2 to the affidavit, which is the charge sheet dated 23.2.2012 and has referred to internal page 2 and has argued that as per the charge sheet, the then Chief Medical Officer, Dr. R.S. Verma was found involved in various irregularities in purchase of medicines as the indents were directly placed and handed over to the private firm M/s Jai Ganesh Traders, Lucknow by diverting the supply orders. The orders/indents were placed to M/s HAL and M/s IDPL, Lucknow but the same were diverted to the firm of the wife of the applicant. It is further argued that if any irregularities in the procedure was found, it was done by Dr. R.S. Verma, CMO and not by the applicant. Reference has also been drawn to annexure-3 and 4 to the affidavit, which are the certificates issued by M/s Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd. and M/s Indian Drug and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. certifying that M/s Jai Ganesh Traders is their authorized distributor to procure the orders, make the supplies and collect the payments on their behalf. Learned counsel for the applicant has further drawn attention of this Court to annexure-5 to the affidavit, which is the document of Bank showing that Mahendra Kumar Pandey is the authorized signatory of the firm M/s Jai Ganesh Traders. Learned counsel for the applicant has referred to paragraph no. 6 of the rejoinder affidavit and stated that the drug licence of the wife of the applicant was granted in the year 2002 and was renewed from time to time. It is further contended that there is nothing on record to show that the medicines, which were supplied by the firm of the wife of the applicant, was supplied on higher price and not on rate contract or any subs-standered medicines were supplied. After due supply of medicines, payment has been made, as such, there is no illegality or irregularity done by the applicant. It is further contended that the applicant is in jail since 2.9.2013 and if he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 has contended that under the NRHM scheme, procedure should be followed strictly for providing the medicines and for the purchase of medicines above Rs. One Lac, tender system should be adopted and in the present case tender system was diverted an indent was given to the firm of applicant in connivance and conspiracy of Dr. R.S. Verma, the then C.M.O., thus, it is contended that the applicant is not entitled for grant of bail.
Learned A.G.A. has also opposed the prayer for bail.
Perused the first information report as well as averments made in the application..
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the ca
