Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 412 (RAJ)

Sandeep Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2017-02-06

BANWARI LAL SHARMA

body2017
ORDER : Banwari Lal Sharma, J. 1. By this application seeking cancellation of bail, petitioner complainant prayed to cancel the order dated 27/02/2013 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1316/2013 (Anil Kumar Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan) by which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the second bail application of respondent accused in FIR No. 269/2011 registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur Metropolitan, District Jaipur City (South). 2. Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Ronak Dixit submits that the aforesaid bail was allowed after considering the fact of settlement arrived at between the parties and the compromise as well as the amended compromise deed had been placed on record before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the application of respondent accused. He submits that since respondent accused failed to comply the conditions of agreement after bail order, therefore, the bail order dated 27.02.2013 may be cancelled. Learned counsel relied on Avinash Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. Decided by Single Bench of Delhi High Court on 22.03.2005 reported in 119 (2005) DLT 1. 3. Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent accused Shri Vivek Goyal submit that if any condition is imposed by the Court and there is breach of condition by the accused, then bail can be cancelled that too promptly. They submit that in the case in hand parties entered into compromise outside the Court and submitted their compromise before the Court. As per learned counsel for respondent accused in pursuance of compromise made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft to petitioner complainant and for remaining amount post dated cheque was given which was accepted by the petitioner complainant. Therefore, considering the fact of compromise, Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the bail application dated 27.02.2013. Shri Vivek Goyal further submits that no condition was imposed by the Court while allowing the bail application rather parties settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. If there is any breach, then that is the matter of Civil dispute. Further, respondent accused has already filed recovery suit which was dismissed and petitioner complainant initiated prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent accused which is pending before the Trial Court. Therefore, no occasion arises for cancellation of bail. They submit that the application seeking cancellation of bail may be dismissed. 4. Further, respondent accused has already filed recovery suit which was dismissed and petitioner complainant initiated prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent accused which is pending before the Trial Court. Therefore, no occasion arises for cancellation of bail. They submit that the application seeking cancellation of bail may be dismissed. 4. I have considered the submissions made at Bar. 5. In bail order dated 27.02.2013, Co-ordinate Bench of this Court observed that:- "in respect of the settlement arrived at between the parties, a compromise as well as the amended compromised deed have been placed on record. It is submitted by the complainant Sandeep Choudhary, present in Court, that it was he who had lodged the report on behalf of all the persons who had made the investment, through him, in the company of which the accused was the Director. He admits that the entire amount invested by the persons in the company of the accused has been received. It is also submitted by him that as the instant case was lodged by him, on behalf of all the persons who had invested the money, he shall return the respective amount to the persons concern from the amount received from the accused. He undertakes to return the money to the respective investors and in case of an default, he shall be liable for the same. In view of the above and taking into consideration, the fact that the instant case which primarily related to the investment of money by the informant and others and the money so invested has now been fully returned by the accused to the complainant and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to now enlarge the petitioner on bail." 6. From the perusal of aforesaid observation of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is apparent that parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and submitted compromise before the Court on which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the bail application. 7. In the matter of Avinash Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. From the perusal of aforesaid observation of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, it is apparent that parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and submitted compromise before the Court on which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the bail application. 7. In the matter of Avinash Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. (Supra), Single Bench of Delhi High Court observed that:- "It also noted that the decision in Vansh Bahadur's case (Supra) 1998 (2) JCC (Delhi) 39 was one where the learned Single Judge had adopted the same approach as adopted by the Supreme Court in M. Sreenivasulu Reddy's case (Supra) 2001 (2) 203 SC that when an accused has undertaken to deposit the amount and acting on that undertaking an interim order of bail is granted, the order does not require any interference thereafter since the accused is bound to pay and since the balance amount which he has undertaken to pay was not paid, the Court in that case had rightly declined to grant indulgence to the accused... ... ...Confronted with these categorical judicial pronouncements, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the period of making the payment as directed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated 17.01.2005 and extended by the order dated 3.3.2005 may be further extended by a period of three weeks during which the petitioners undertook that they shall make the said payment. Accordingly, in this view of the matter, the anticipatory bail that has been granted to the petitioners, shall be granted on the same terms and conditions provided that the petitioners deposit the said amount within a further period of three weeks from today." 8. From the aforesaid order, it is clear that learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court considering the pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the undertaking was given by the accused before the Court not outside the Court. Still after breach of undertaking, learned Single Judge extended the time to deposit the amount, therefore, this order does not help the present petitioner. 9. Here in the case in hand, since parties settled their dispute outside the Court and submitted compromise before the Court which was accepted and bail was granted. Still after breach of undertaking, learned Single Judge extended the time to deposit the amount, therefore, this order does not help the present petitioner. 9. Here in the case in hand, since parties settled their dispute outside the Court and submitted compromise before the Court which was accepted and bail was granted. Since cheque given by the respondent accused in pursuance of compromise which was dishonoured, therefore, further criminal proceedings were initiated by the petitioner complainant against the respondent accused under Section 138 N.I. Act. More so the anticipatory bail order was passed on 27.02.2013 i.e. before two years and there is no allegation regarding misuse of the bail order, therefore, there is no ground for cancellation of bail. 10. Therefore, the bail application seeking cancellation of bail is dismissed.