P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) THE applicant, who has duped and cheated so many innocent persons, has approached this Court once again, by way of filing this application, praying to release him on bail during the pendency of the trial. Initially, this Court had released the applicant on bail. However, since it was found that he has committed breach of the conditions, the bail was cancelled, and he was taken into custody. Thereafter he has approached this Court again by filing the present application ( 2 ) FACTS leading to the present application are as under: 2. 1 A complaint has been filed against the applicant- accused, which is registered as FIR No. 232 of 2004 before the Satellite Police Station, Ahmedabad City. The said complaint has been filed by one Naranbhai and 23 others under section 420, 114, 120. B, 467, 471 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. The complainants have booked residential flats which was to be constructed by the applicant-accused. The accused had constructed various towers, known as Nandanvan-IV Scheme. The complainants have booked their flats in i Tower, and had paid considerable amount towards earnest money. Subsequently, the complainants realised that the accused had tried to defraud them, and though a promise was given to them that there is a valid title so far as the flats are concerned, it was found that the flats in question were mortgaged in favour of a nationalized Bank. The complainant ultimately filed the said complaint before the aforesaid police station, and the applicant came to be arrested in connection with the aforesaid complaint. 2. 2 The applicant had initially moved this Court for granting him bail, as his bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court. The aforesaid application was registered as Criminal Misc. Application No. 8905 of 2004. At the time of hearing of the aforesaid application, learned counsel for the applicant accused submitted before this Court that the applicant accused is willing to complete the construction within reasonable time, and will hand over the vacant possession within a stipulated time. Counsel for the applicant at that time submitted that if the applicant is allowed to remain in jail for a long time, he will not be able to complete the construction within the stipulated time. Counsel for the applicant at that time submitted that if the applicant is allowed to remain in jail for a long time, he will not be able to complete the construction within the stipulated time. The accused also agreed that so far as some of the complainants are concerned, they will be given alternative accommodation. Ultimately, this Court disposed of the aforesaid Misc. Civil Application, and released the applicant on bail by observing as under:"7. It seems that as on today, three complaintshave been filed against the present accused. Learned advocate Mr. Nanavati, who is appearing for the accused submitted that now the investigation is over, and even charge sheet is also submitted. He further submitted that alternatively, if the complainants are ready to accept the amount in question, the petitioner is in a position to pay back the entire amount with interest. It is submitted that because of financial difficulties he could not complete the construction of various towers as planned, and there was no intention on his part to cheat the complainants. 8. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that out of 24 complainants, 7 complainants are already given alternative accommodation, and so far as the remaining 17 complainants are concerned, the petitioner is willing to file an undertaking before this Court that in case he is released on bail, he will try to see that within 12 months, he will handover vacant and peaceful possession flats in Tower i of nandanvan-4 having marketable title to the complainants and that the said possession will be as per the specification given in the brochure, and he shall not demand any further amount from the complainants under any heads. 8. 1 Mr. Nanavati further submitted that so far as the 17 complainants who have not been given alternative accommodation are concerned, till the actual possession is given to them, the petitioner will pay Rs. 5000/_ each of such complainant and he will start making such payments from 1. 11. 2004 and such amount will be paid on or before 7th of every month. He submitted that since the petitioner has already taken the amount and has not handed over possession of flats, the petitioner will pay the aforesaid amount till the possession is handed over. 9. He further submitted that necessary undertaking will be filed before this Court within two weeks from the date of release from the custody. 10. Mr. He submitted that since the petitioner has already taken the amount and has not handed over possession of flats, the petitioner will pay the aforesaid amount till the possession is handed over. 9. He further submitted that necessary undertaking will be filed before this Court within two weeks from the date of release from the custody. 10. Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation is over. He further submitted that even though the petitioner is found to have committed the alleged offence, he has no objection if appropriate direction is given in view of the fact thatthe petitioner has shown willingness to file undertaking before this Court in order to see that innocent complainants may get their flats. 11. Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the original complainants submitted that if the petitioner is retained in the jail for a long time, it may further delay giving possession of the flats. He further submitted that if the petitioner is willing to file an undertaking as aforesaid, the court may release the petitioner on regular bail on appropriate conditions, as deemed fit. 12. Learned advocates and Public Prosecutor submittedthat they do not press for reasoned order. 13. I have heard the advocates appearing for theparties and the Public prosecutor. I have also gone through the order passed by the learned Judge of the Fast track Court. The accused is in jail since 23rd June 2004. Charge Sheet is filed and investigation is over. As stated above, the accused, through his advocate, has shown willingness to file an undertaking before this Court to the effect that he will handover possession of flats to the complainants and that he will pay Rs. 5000/_ to each of such complainant till the possession of the flat is given. 14. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime Register No. I - 342 of 2004 with Satellite Police Station on his executing a bond of Rs. 14. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the parties, and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in connection with Crime Register No. I - 342 of 2004 with Satellite Police Station on his executing a bond of Rs. 25,000/_ (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the lower Court and subject to the conditions that he shall, a) not take undue advantage of his liberty or abuse liberty; b) not act in a manner injurious to the interest of prosecution; c) maintain law and order; d) furnish the address of his residence at the time execution of the bond and shall not change the without prior permission of this Court; e) surrender his Passport, if any, to the lower within a week. f) mark his presence before Satellite Police station the 1st Monday of every month between 9. 00 A. M 2. 00 P. M. g) not leave the local limits of District ahmedabad prior permission of the concerned Judge. h ). file an undertaking before this Court within two from the date of release incorporating all conditions stated hereinabove. 15. It is clarified that if the undertaking is not filed within the stipulated time, and if breach of any of the conditions of the undertaking is committed, the bail granted to the petitioner shall stand automatically cancelled and in such eventuality, it shall be open to the concerned authorities to take custody of thepetitioner. Mr. Nanavati submitted that in such circumstances, the accused will immediately surrender to the custody. 16. It is clarified that the petitioner- accused is granted bail in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the willingness of the petitioner-accused to file undertaking as aforesaid, and the factum of his release on bail or the contents of the undertaking, if filed, shall not be taken into consideration in the trial and the case against the accused shall be decided on merits. " ( 3 ) ON the basis of the said order, the applicant had also filed an undertaking to the following effect:"2. I have carefully gone through the order passed by this Honourable Court and in compliance thereof i am filing this undertaking to this Honourable court on solemn affirmation. (i ). " ( 3 ) ON the basis of the said order, the applicant had also filed an undertaking to the following effect:"2. I have carefully gone through the order passed by this Honourable Court and in compliance thereof i am filing this undertaking to this Honourable court on solemn affirmation. (i ). I undertake to this Honourable Court that out of 24 allotees of Nandanvan IV in Tower-I, 7 persons have already been accommodated in the alternate flats. I shall give alternative accommodation to remaining 17 persons, i. e. Flats having clear and marketable title within 12 months from the date of passing of this order, i. e. 12. 10. 2004. (ii ). I further undertake that till the actual possession of the flat as aforesaid within 12 months is given to the 17 parties, I undertake to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/-- [rs. Five thousand each] to each of the complainants and such payment of Rs. 5000-00 shall be commenced w. e. f. 1-11-2004 and all subsequent payments of Rs. 5000-00 will be made on or before 7th day of each subsequent month in the calendar year until the possession of the flat as aforesaid is given. (iii ). I further undertake to abide by each and every conditions contained in para-14 (a) to (h) imposed in the order dated 12-10-2004 by this honourable Court in the above referred. 3. I further undertake to this Honourable Court that any breach in the aforesaid conditions will render the above referred order granting bail to the undersigned cancelled automatically. "3. 1 In view of the said order, the applicant was released from the custody. ( 4 ) THE applicant accused had, thereafter, moved another application, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 3921 of 2005, for modification of the aforesaid condition of the bail order on the ground that the applicant is not in a position to handover the flats as some proceedings are pending in connection with the facts before the Debt recovery Tribunal at the instance of some Banks. In the said application, it is averred by the applicant that the applicant is not in a position to start construction of tower i in the manner in which it was anticipated by the applicant when the earlier order was passed by this Court. In the said application, it is averred by the applicant that the applicant is not in a position to start construction of tower i in the manner in which it was anticipated by the applicant when the earlier order was passed by this Court. The applicant, therefore, by the aforesaid application, prayed for modification of the condition and prayed that the applicant may be permitted to pay the entire principal amount to each of the complainants by 30th April 2005. ( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the aforesaid MCA for modification of the conditions in the earlier order, it was noticed by the Court that the applicant had not even paid Rs. 5000/- each to the complainants, which he was required to pay as per the undertaking. Some of the complainants, therefore, filed an application before this Court for cancellation of bail, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 8809 of 2005. In spite of the directions in the order that in case of breach of any of the conditions, the bail granted by this Court shall stand cancelled, the police authorities had not arrested the applicant, and, therefore, learned Public prosecutor instructed the police department to arrest the applicant forthwith since there was breach of the conditions of the order granting bail. Thereafter, the applicant was taken into custody. The applicant thereafter moved the present application, being Criminal Misc. Application No. 9149 of 2005, to release him on bail by submitting fresh grounds, as earlier order granting bail no longer operates in view of the breach of the conditions on the part of the applicant accused, and in view of the fact that subsequently the applicant was arrested. ( 6 ) IN this application also, the applicant was released on temporary bail for few days with a view to see to it that entire amount which is required to be paid as per earlier order, is paid within a week from the date of release. It is submitted by Mr. Nanavati for the accused that the same is already paid, i. e. Rs. 5000/- is paid to each of the complainants till July 2005 except to two complainants, who were not available. ( 7 ) MR. It is submitted by Mr. Nanavati for the accused that the same is already paid, i. e. Rs. 5000/- is paid to each of the complainants till July 2005 except to two complainants, who were not available. ( 7 ) MR. Nanavati submitted that the applicant is not in a position to complete the construction of the premises as the premises is under attachment at the instance of the Bank, and proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal is pending. Mr. Nanavati further submitted that if the applicant is released on bail, he may make an effort to see that at least the principal amount is paid to the complainants. He, however, frankly submitted that there is nothing today to show that the applicant has any resources from which he can pay to the complainants. ( 8 ) IN response to the notice issued by this Court, Mr. A. D. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that the applicant has not only committed breach of the conditions granting bail, but has also acted in a very high handed manner. He submitted that the applicant gave alternative accommodation to 7 complainants, and in spite of the clear undertaking given by the applicant in that behalf, the applicant gave a notice dated 18th June 2005 through advocate Mr. Rajesh H. Sahjani to one such person to whom the alternate accommodation was given. The said notice is finding place at Annexure g [page 29] in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9092 of 2005, which is filed by one of the complainants, Indiraben Bhatt, for cancellation of bail. The said notice is given by advocate Mr. Rajesh H. Sahjani at the instance of one Deepakbhai Fakhirbhai Merchant. who according to the applicant is the owner of the flat which the applicant has given to the aforesaid complaint as alternative accommodation on temporary basis. The relevant part of the notice reads as under: sunder instructions and on behalf of my client deepakbhai Fakhirbhai Merchant, residing at A/405 pujan Flats, Nr. Bhoomi Party Plot, Nr. AEC, naranpura, Ahmedabad, I have to address you this last and final notice as under:1. That my client is the owner of the above mention flat in which you are residing as tress- passer and without knowledge and permission of my client. 2. Bhoomi Party Plot, Nr. AEC, naranpura, Ahmedabad, I have to address you this last and final notice as under:1. That my client is the owner of the above mention flat in which you are residing as tress- passer and without knowledge and permission of my client. 2. That my client visited his flat last week and surprised to know that you are in side of illegal possession of said flat and you are also taken or sell out the total furniture and other think like t. V. , Small Fridge, etc. 3. That my client wants to know that in what capacity you are residing in the said flat as my client will definitely take legal action for tress- passing and for the stolen furniture of Rs. 75,000/ -. 4. That by this illegal and malafide action, you have rendered yourself liable to be prosecuted for the criminal offence committed by you under various laws and more particularly my client will also take civil action for recovery of the stolen furniture of Rs. 75,000/- against you. 5. Therefore, you are hereby call upon by my client that vacant the said flat within 3 days of receipt of this notice failing which my client shall be constrained to take legal action as advised against you before the Criminal Court at ahmedabad for initiation of proceedings u/s. I. P. C. Of the Criminal Procedure Code for tress- passing and ill-legal possession of the said flat, as provided and in accordance with law, and int hat event, you would be held solely liable for all the cost and consequences which please note. " ( 9 ) IT is submitted by learned Public Prosecutor Mr. Oza that on one hand, as per the undertaking given by the applicant on an earlier occasion possession is given to one of the complainants and on the other hand notice is issued to vacate the flat on the ground that the complainant has tried to trespass by entering the said flat. Therefore, he submitted that a false affidavit is filed before this Court on the basis of which the applicant ultimately got the benefit of bail. Mr. Oza further submitted that the applicant himself has also addressed a notice to the said complainant on July 15, 2005, a copy of which is finding place at Annexure h page 31 of the compilation of Misc. Criminal Application No. 9092/05. Mr. Oza further submitted that the applicant himself has also addressed a notice to the said complainant on July 15, 2005, a copy of which is finding place at Annexure h page 31 of the compilation of Misc. Criminal Application No. 9092/05. In the said notice, there is a reference to the aforesaid notice given by the said deepakbhai Fakhirbhai Merchant. Moreover, perusing the records [page 43-44 of Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 8905/04], it is clear that Mr. Rajesh H. Sahjani is the advocate for swarshilp Properties Ltd. , of which the applicant in the managing Director, which has floated the present Nandanvan- iv Scheme. By the said notice, the applicant has called upon the said complainant to vacate the flat. Mr. Oza submitted that on one hand the applicant has made a statement before this Court and has stated on oath before this Court that 7 flats have been given to 7 complainant, and on the other hand, one of the complainants is subjected to such type of notice. He, therefore, submitted that the applicant is trying to mislead the Court, and on such false assurance this Court passed the order granting bail on earlier occasion. He, therefore, submitted that this Court should not exercise the power in favour of the applicant by releasing him on bail. Mr. Oza also submitted that the applicant has also given threats to various complainants to withdraw the proceedings and is also compelling them to execute certain documents. ( 10 ) AT the time of hearing of these applications today, one of the complainants, Mr. Kalashnikov marshaling mansards, remained present in the court and sought for an audience and submitted that he has not filed a separate application for cancellation of bail, and submitted that this is not a case in which the applicant should be released on bail. He submitted that he is aged about 71 years, and a retired railway employee. He submitted that he has invested his retiral dues in order to see that he may get a shelter over his head and has paid Rs. 4,66,000/-, but has been duped by the applicant. He submitted that he has paid a substantial portion of his retiral dues to the applicant with the hope that the will give a flat to him. 4,66,000/-, but has been duped by the applicant. He submitted that he has paid a substantial portion of his retiral dues to the applicant with the hope that the will give a flat to him. He further submitted that his wife is suffering from chronic Thyroid for which he need money for operation and for want of money he is not in a position to go for surgery. He submitted that the applicant subsequently gave him few post dated cheques and they have all been bounced back. He submitted that to set an example, such people should not be released on bail, otherwise the applicant will continue to dupe more and more persons in the same fashion. ( 11 ) LEARNED advocate Mr. P. J. Patel, who appears in Misc. Criminal Application No. 8809 of 2005, which is filed by one of the complainants, vehemently submitted that the applicant, except giving empty promises, has not paid any substantial amount and has paid Rs. 5000/- to each of the complainants with difficulty and that too after cancellation of the bail by this Court. He submitted that one of the complainants, Prakhash Abhivan, is doing labour work of preparing covers for auto rickshaws and his entire lifetime savings have been invested in the scheme floated by the applicant with the hope that he will get a shelter over his head, and he has also been duped by the applicant, who is a chartered Architect. ( 12 ) LEARNED Public Prosecutor Mr. Oza vehemently submitted that when this Court, relying upon the statement of the applicant and the undertaking filed by him released the applicant on bail on conditions, and if breach of the conditions imposed by the Court for releasing him on bail is committed, this is not a case in which any further sympathy is required to be shown to the applicant, especially when the applicant has duped so many innocent persons by giving false promises of providing flats or residential houses. Mr. Oza submitted that such cases are increasing in the society, and therefore, no discretion is required to be shown in favour of such person. Mr. Oza submitted that not only that the applicant has duped so many persons, but has also committed breach of the undertaking given to this Court and has also acted in a high handed manner. ( 13 ) MR. Mr. Oza submitted that not only that the applicant has duped so many persons, but has also committed breach of the undertaking given to this Court and has also acted in a high handed manner. ( 13 ) MR. Oza, learned Public Prosecutor, relied on the judgment in the case of ARVIND MOHAN JOHRI vs. STATE OF U. P. Reported in 2005 SCC (Cri.) 1170. in the said case, the supreme Court granted bail on various conditions, and ultimately, when an application was presented for recalling the order, the Supreme Court held as under in paragraphs 11 and 12 as under:"11. The fact, however, remains that no amount as such is admittedly payable by the applicant Stock exchanges. In their respective applications, as indicated hereinabove, the applicants had stated that they, in fact, would be entitled to realize a huge amount from the appellants. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellants misled this Court in passing the said order dated 3-11-2004 by raising contention to the effect that a sum of Rs. 17 Cores and Rs. 13 Cores was admittedly lying with the Bombay Stock exchange and the National Stock Exchange in the shape of bank guarantee money and securities margin money etc. 12. It is true that the prayers made by the applicants herein in their applications are confined to the directions issued against them but we are of the opinion, having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, that if a substantial sum lying with them is not available for disbursement to the claimants, the very purpose for enlarging the appellants herein on bail would not be subserved and in that view of the matter the order dated 3-11-2004 granting bail to the appellants herein should be recalled. Accordingly, the appellants Arvind Mohan Johri and anand Krishna Johri are hereby directed to surrender before the trial Court within one week from date whereupon they may be taken into custody. If and when the disputes between the stock Exchanges and the appellants are adjudicated upon by a competent forum and/or court of law, as a result whereof the appellants would be in a position to repay the outstanding dues of the claimants, namely, M/s. City Cooperative Bank ltd. , and M/s. Century Consultants Ltd. , they may apply for grant of bail afresh. , and M/s. Century Consultants Ltd. , they may apply for grant of bail afresh. " ( 14 ) RELYING upon the said observation of the Apex Court, Mr. Oza submitted that here, the applicant, by making a false representation, has got the benefit of bail order, and subsequently, it is found that he has committed a breach of the undertaking given to this Court. He submitted that under the circumstances, this is not a case in which now any fresh application for bail is required to be entertained. ( 15 ) MR. Nanavati for the applicant submitted that by allowing the applicant to remain in jail, no useful purpose would be served, and in case the applicant is released on bail, the applicant may try to generate finance and may pay up the entire principal amount. He submitted that the applicant has paid the outstanding amount of Rs. 5000/- each as agreed before this Court earlier. He further submitted that in view of the fact that some proceedings are pending before the Debt Recovery Tribunal at the instance of Bank, the applicant is not in a position to construct and handover the flats to the complainant. It is the submission of Mr. Nanavati that the applicant may either try to pay back the principal amount or give alternative accommodation in panchdeep Apartments, but that would be possible only if the applicant is enlarged on bail. He submitted that some of the complainants were also shown such flats in other schemes. Mr. Nanavati further submitted in such type of offences in which the applicant is involved, the accused are normally released on bail as ultimately according to him,it is nothing but a commercial dispute. Mr. Nanavati submitted that at the time when the applicant accepted the amount for booking the flats in question, he was under the impression that he will be bale to fulfill his obligation, but ultimately since he could not repay the dues of the Bank etc. the applicant landed himself in difficulties. Mr. Nanavati has relied upon the judgment in the case of SANDEEP jain vs. N. C. T. OF DELHI reported in AIR 2000 SC 714 wherein the Apex Court dealt with a case of release on bail on condition that accused at FIR stage should pay huge sum of rs. 2 lakhs. the applicant landed himself in difficulties. Mr. Nanavati has relied upon the judgment in the case of SANDEEP jain vs. N. C. T. OF DELHI reported in AIR 2000 SC 714 wherein the Apex Court dealt with a case of release on bail on condition that accused at FIR stage should pay huge sum of rs. 2 lakhs. The Apex Court held that such condition is onerous and in default thereof, the accused will languish in jail endlessly. The Court, therefore held such condition to be improper more so when the offence alleged against the accused were under sections 420 and 406 of the Indian Penal code where bail would normally be granted. Mr. Nanavati relied on this judgment to substantiate his say that in case involving offence under sec. 420 and 406 of IPC, bail would normally be granted. ( 16 ) IN the instant case, this is not the first bail application of the applicant. The applicant earlier preferred Misc. Criminal Application No. 8905/04 wherein he was granted bail. Hence the argument of Mr. Nanavati that in such cases bail would normally be granted has no merit at all. The applicant was thereafter taken into custody for breach of conditions of the order granting him bail, and for committing breach of the undertaking given by him. Moreover, on one hand the applicant made a show that he is complying with the undertaking by providing alternative accommodation, and on the other hand he has issued notice to vacate. This is nothing but playing fraud with the Court and committing a contempt. The reliance of Mr. Nanavati on the said judgment, is, therefore, of no avail to him. ( 17 ) MR. Nanavati also further submitted that the applicant has, during the intervening period while he was on bail earlier, raised a sum of Rs. 1,91,00,000/- and paid the same to other creditors. ( 18 ) I have heard the concerned advocates at length. In my view, this is not a case in which this Court would like to use its discretion in favour of the applicant for releasing him on bail again. It is required to be noted that at the earlier occasion, when the matter was heard by this Court, an assurance was given in the form of an undertaking which is already incorporated in the earlier part of this order. It is required to be noted that at the earlier occasion, when the matter was heard by this Court, an assurance was given in the form of an undertaking which is already incorporated in the earlier part of this order. After the applicant was released on bail, he has flouted the order by not even paying Rs. 5000/- to each of the complainant as agreed by him, and ultimately when this very applicant applied for modification of the condition, it was noticed by this Court about the breach committed by the applicant, and ultimately the applicant was taken into custody. For a considerable time, the applicant was at large after committing breach of the conditions. It is also relevant to note that after cancellation of the bail, the applicant has paid the aforesaid amount to the complainants. Apart from the aforesaid aspect, the applicant has also committed a breach of the undertaking wherein he has stated that alternative accommodation is given to 7 complainants. As against that, after his release, he has given notice to one of the complainants, Indiraben B. Bhatt, calling upon her to vacate the flat as it was given only on a temporary basis. The aforesaid notice is nothing but a breach of the condition, and even it may amount to contempt of the Court as the applicant has flouted the undertaking given to this court. Not only that, in the said notice, the applicant has reiterated the contention of the original allottee that she is a trespasser and in illegal possession of the said flat. If the flat belonged to some else, the applicant could not have filed an undertaking that the flat is given to the said complainant giving hope to her that the said flat is having a marketable title. The applicant therefore has not only cheated the complainant while initially accepting the amount at the time of booking the flats, but even after the order of this Court and even after being released on bail, he has aggravated the cheating further, as stated hereinabove. The applicant has duped poor and innocent persons such as retired government employee who has invested his retiral dues and hard earned money for getting a shelter over his head. In the greed to earn money, the applicant has duped poor and innocent persons, and at their cost, the applicant has tried to enrich himself. The applicant has duped poor and innocent persons such as retired government employee who has invested his retiral dues and hard earned money for getting a shelter over his head. In the greed to earn money, the applicant has duped poor and innocent persons, and at their cost, the applicant has tried to enrich himself. Even there is no cogent material available with the Court today to show as to in which manner the applicant can pay up his entire dues, except making bare statements in this behalf. The applicant has booked the flats after giving hope to the complainants that the title is clear though it is not in dispute that the flats were mortgaged with a Bank for which proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal is pending. It is not possible to agree with the submission of Mr. Nanavati that in such cases, granting of bail is a matter of course eventhough it is found that after being released on bail, the accused has committed breach of the conditions of bail as also flouted the undertaking given to this Court. After getting benefit of the bail order, it was not proper on the part of the applicant to commit breach of the undertaking and to back out from the statement made before this Court on earlier occasion though by the same the applicant is benefitted by remaining outside the jail for about ten months. The applicant, though a professional an Architect, has tried to dupe poor persons who have invested large amounts with the hope of getting a shelter over their head. The applicant gave publicity on the basis of which the complainants booked their flat and the complainants have parted with considerable amount in favour of the accused. Now the applicant, with folded hands, has come out with an application that he is not in a position to fulfill his obligation of constructing the aforesaid Tower i as there is an attachment over the property at the instance of the bank and in view of the pendency of the proceedings in the debt Recovery Tribunal. This fact could have been stated when the original bail application was argued before this court, and after taking advantage of the bail order and having filed an undertaking before this Court, the applicant has tried to back out from the same. This fact could have been stated when the original bail application was argued before this court, and after taking advantage of the bail order and having filed an undertaking before this Court, the applicant has tried to back out from the same. Accordingly, the applicant has not only duped the complainants, but also flouted the orders passed by this Court and committed breach of the conditions granting bail. A person who is granted bail is required to follow the conditions scrupulously, and cannot take the order of the Court for granted by flouting the said order. No sympathy can be shown in favour of such a person, as ultimately, while granting the bail, credentials and character of a person who is before the Court is also required to be considered. It is also required to be noted that if the Court continues to grant bail in such a casual manner, then it may encourage such persons to ignore the orders and conditions imposed by the Court while granting bail or by presuming that eventhough there is a breach of such conditions, the same may not be taken seriously and ultimately even subsequently, the accused can get the benefit of bail order. The applicant could have pointed out his difficulties initially at the time when the first application was argued but after getting the benefit of the order of bail, he has completely ignored the conditions and has even blatantly flouted the undertaking given to this court. After the bail order was passed, the applicant never approached the Court to point out that he is unable to comply with the conditions of bail or fulfill the undertaking given by him. Ultimately, the applicant approached for modification of the condition and even at that stage, the applicant was continuously committing breach of the conditions by not paying Rs. 5000/- to each of the complainants. The Court cannot ignore the plight of the innocent persons who have invested their hard earned money with the hope of getting a shelter over their head. Even other wise, except bare words, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is in a position to pay the amount to the complainants. On the contrary, the applicant owe large amount of money to others including banks also. Even in the past, after giving undertaking, he could not fulfill his obligation. Even other wise, except bare words, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant is in a position to pay the amount to the complainants. On the contrary, the applicant owe large amount of money to others including banks also. Even in the past, after giving undertaking, he could not fulfill his obligation. I am not impressed by the arguments of Mr. Nanavati that usually in such type of cases bail should be granted as a matter of course. In my view, considering the facts of the present case as stated hereinabove, no discretion is required to be exercised in favour of the applicant who has flouted the conditions of bail and committed breach of the undertaking filed by him. Having taken the order of the Court so casually, it must be presumed that he must have done so at his own peril. Such type of cases where innocent persons are duped and cheated in the matter of financial transactions are increasing day by day and it may give wrong signal to the Society if such persons are released on bail even after committing breach of the undertaking and statement before this Court. As stated earlier, after being released on bail, the applicant had the audacity to address a letter to one of the complainants who was given alternative accommodation, calling upon her to vacate the premises, stating to the extent that the same was only a temporary arrangement, and that the occupation is illegal. This clearly indicates the high-handiness on the part of the accused and his blatant disrespect to the conditions on which he was released on bail by this Court. Considering this fact also, I am of the view that this is not a case in which the applicant is required to be released on bail by passing a discretionary order in favour of the applicant. I also find some substance in the say of learned public Prosecutor that the the breach of undertaking given to this Court may amount to contempt of this Court. ( 19 ) LASTLY, Mr. Nanavati submitted that the applicant should be released on temporary bail for few days and the Court can monitor his conduct to see whether the applicant is paying the amount to the complainant. ( 19 ) LASTLY, Mr. Nanavati submitted that the applicant should be released on temporary bail for few days and the Court can monitor his conduct to see whether the applicant is paying the amount to the complainant. This Court is not excepted to carry out such exercise of monitoring the conduct of the applicant on a day to day basis more particularly, when, except bare words, nothing is shown to the Court that the applicant has any means or source from which he can pay back the amount. On the contrary, the record indicates that he has large outstanding debts for which other proceedings are also initiated. This request, therefore, has no merit, and is rejected. ( 20 ) MR. Nanavati lastly prayed for time to surrender. In the peculiar facts of this case, the said request is also rejected. ( 21 ) IN light of what is stated hereinabove, I do not find any substance in this application. The application is rejected. The order granting temporary bail is also cancelled. The applicant to surrender to the custody forthwith. Rule is discharged. ( 22 ) IN view of the aforesaid order passed in Criminal Misc. Application No. 9149 of 2005, no separate order is required to be passed in Criminal Misc. Applications No. 3921/05, 6610/05, 8809/05, and, 9092/05, and they stand disposed of accordingly. Notice issued in Criminal Misc. Appln. No. 3921/05 and 8809/05 stands discharged. .