A Mumbai Court on Thursday reserved its verdict on the maintainability of a plea filed by the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) to cancel the bail granted to television actors Bharti Singh and her husband Harsh Limbachiyaa in a case registered for the alleged possession of drugs. .The actors were granted bail on November 23, 2020 after they had been arrested by NCB for allegedly being in possession of drugs..This was challenged by the NCB through the following applications:A revision application,An application for the cancellation of bail under Sections 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with remand of a person on bail back to custody..In the pleas assailing the bail order and seeking the cancellation of bail, the NCB contended that the grant of bail to the couple would send a dangerous signal to society. The NCB objected to bail being granted by the ACMM without hearing Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Atul Sarpande, who appears for the agency.The NCB submitted that when the bail application was filed before the Vacation Magistrate on November 22, the order clearly directed the SPP and the investigating officer were to reply to the application..Advocate Ayaz Khan, appearing for the actors, challenged the maintainability of the NCB pleas.His contention was that two separate applications for quashing a single order cannot be pursued at the same time. .In the present case, where a single relief of quashing the bail order was sought, the prosecution could not have invoked two jurisdictions of the court - one pertaining to revision jurisdiction under Section 399 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and another pertaining to cancellation of bail under Section 439.He emphasised that judicial propriety required the prosecution to withdraw one of the applications and pursue the other one. .He also stated that since both the actors had filed for separate bail applications, it was appropriate for the prosecution to file for separate applications seeking cancellation of bail..Khan's additional submission was that the bail orders were interlocutory orders, which could be challenged through a revision application. .Responding to Khan's submissions, Sarpande argued that even if the bail applications had been separate, the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was common and that there was no prejudice that was being caused by virtue of the common petition..After hearing the submissions of the parties, Additional Sessions Judge VV Patil, Special Judge for cases pertaining to the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS), reserved orders on the maintainability of the pleas. The verdict will be pronounced on October 8, 2021.