JUDGMENT 1. - The matter has come up on an application seeking cancellation of bail so granted to the accused-respondent No.2-Parmeshwar Lal. 2. It is stated that dowry articles have not yet been recovered. This is precisely for the reason that accused remained in police custody only for one day thus recovery was not possible during that period. After filing of the application for cancellation of bail, accused remained present in the court and assured that he will returned dowry articles but when articles were not returned he was asked to remain present in the court. On 24.11.2010, accused respondent No.2 stated that though he was willing and taken dowry articles to be handed over to the petitioner, it was not accepted by the SHO concerned for want of case diary. On the aforesaid, a specific direction was given to the SHO to accept dowry articles. In view of prayer made by the accused-Parmeshwar Lal, who had shown his willingness to return the articles, he was directed to return the articles to the SHO. This was to cut short the issue regarding acceptance and non-acceptance of the articles by petitioner herein. Accused respondent neither remained present before the IO nor returned the articles thus looking to the conduct of the accused-respondent No.2-Parmeshwar Lal his bail order deserves to be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that accused is not in her contact. He had earlier assured to return dowry articles. Accordingly, it is prayed that matter may be decided finally. 4. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties and perused record of the case. 5. It is a matter where case was registered against accused-respondent No.2 under sections 498A, 406, 323 and 147 IPC. He was granted bail by the court below vide order dated 22.7.2010. The recovery of dowry articles has not been effected. On issuance of notice by this court, accused respondent No.2 assured for returning of articles but on one or other pretext he has sought adjournment which was granted by this court. On the last occasion, he was directed to return the articles to the SHO concerned but there is failure on the part of the accused non-petitioner No.2 to return articles. Looking to aforesaid, more specifically conduct of accused respondent No.2 - Parmeshwar Lal, I am inclined to accept this application for cancellation of bail. 6. On the last occasion, he was directed to return the articles to the SHO concerned but there is failure on the part of the accused non-petitioner No.2 to return articles. Looking to aforesaid, more specifically conduct of accused respondent No.2 - Parmeshwar Lal, I am inclined to accept this application for cancellation of bail. 6. Accordingly, application for cancellation of bail is allowed. Bail granted to the accused non-petitioner No.2 - Parmeshwar Lal on 22.7.2010 by the court below is hereby cancelled.Application allowed. *******