JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. Though learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 had entered appearance, but in view of the fact that it has been submitted that opposite party no. 2 was an absconder evading the process of law, he had taken time to seek instructions. Today the submission was that he has not been able to get in touch with the opposite party no. 2. Thus, he only assisted the Court with regard to the proposition of law that bail orders are only interlocutory in nature and not hit by Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Code’). 3. The petitioner has moved the Court under Section 482 of the Code for the following relief: “That this petition is being filed for quashing that part of Order dt. 10.3.14 passed in S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 168/12 [GR No. 3611/12] by Shri Ravi Ranjan, J.M. 1st Class, Patna by which petitioner has been directed to deposit Rs. 18 lacs in Nazarat as the direction is apparently without jurisdiction and more over beyond the pleading/prayer of either of the parties made for the application/issue on which the order in question has been passed.” 4. The petitioner had filed S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 168 of 2012, corresponding to G.R. No. 3611 of 2012, against the opposite party no. 2, another named accused and 3-4 unnamed accused. The allegation was that the opposite party no. 2 was paid various amounts totalling Rs. 91 lakhs for buying flats but when the petitioner had gone at the spot, where the flat was being constructed, it was found that the opposite party no. 2 had already sold the flat to other persons. In the said case, the opposite party no. 2 was arrested and for seeking bail, a compromise was entered into between the parties on 02.05.2013, in terms of which Rs. 8 lakhs cash was paid by the opposite party no. 2, prior to the execution of the compromise and Rs. 10 lakhs demand draft dated 29.04.2013 in favour of the petitioner was to be submitted at the time of filing of the compromise petition before the Court and further as per the compromise, six post dated cheques of various amounts were also submitted to the Court. 2, prior to the execution of the compromise and Rs. 10 lakhs demand draft dated 29.04.2013 in favour of the petitioner was to be submitted at the time of filing of the compromise petition before the Court and further as per the compromise, six post dated cheques of various amounts were also submitted to the Court. The compromise envisaged that upon release of the opposite party no. 2, on conditional bail, the petitioner would be handed over the demand draft of Rs. 10 lakhs which he would be entitled to encash and on every subsequent date of the cheques, the same would be handed over by the Court to the petitioner for being encashed and thereafter, conditionally the bail would be extended from time to time and upon the other conditions of the compromise i.e., transfer of the flat belonging to the opposite party no. 2, being made in favour of the petitioner, the parties would ensure that the criminal case was terminated in favour of the accused. It was further provided that if there was any failure on behalf of opposite party no. 2 of any of the terms of the compromise, the petitioner would be free to prosecute him and such failure shall also lead to cancellation of the bail of the opposite party no. 2. The same was filed before the Court on 04.05.2013 and accordingly, based on the compromise the Court had granted bail to the opposite party no. 2. As per the compromise, the date of the cheques were 25.05.2013, 25.06.2013, 25.07.2013. 25.08.2013, 25.09.2013 and 25.10.2013. Though, the opposite party no. 2 continued on bail and the cheques were handed over to the petitioner but the same were dishonoured by the Banks concerned due to which the petitioner filed an application on 12.11.2013 for cancellation of the bail granted to the opposite party no. 2. After hearing the parties, by order dated 10.03.2014, though the Court below negated the defence taken by the opposite party no. 2 for not ensuring the cheques issued by him in favour of the petitioner being honoured, cancelled the bail granted to him, but on the plea of equity, the Court also directed the petitioner to deposit a demand draft of 18 lakhs in the Court Nazarat. Being aggrieved by the same, the present application has been filed. 5. 2 for not ensuring the cheques issued by him in favour of the petitioner being honoured, cancelled the bail granted to him, but on the plea of equity, the Court also directed the petitioner to deposit a demand draft of 18 lakhs in the Court Nazarat. Being aggrieved by the same, the present application has been filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the compromise the initial amounts were paid to the petitioner and encashed by him and for every subsequent extension of the bail to the opposite party no. 2, certain amount was to be paid to the petitioner but the subsequent amounts remained unpaid. However, it was submitted that the bail granted from time to time was on the condition that the payment of various amounts in a time frame shall be paid to the petitioner and, thus, the opposite party no. 2 having availed all that benefit by remaining on bail, the quid pro quo of the petitioner receiving only a fraction of the amount, it is not only unjust to direct for its refund but also beyond the competence of the Court concerned. Learned counsel submitted that the cancellation of bail was in terms of Section 437(5) of the Code, which does not provide for any review or recall of the conditions, moreso with regard to events which have stood concluded, as the same would amount to passing a fresh order on merits, which was not the scope of the petition for cancellation of bail. Learned counsel submitted that even the defence taken by the opposite party no. 2 that he was not in a fit state of mind, while signing the compromise has been thoroughly negated by giving cogent reasons by the Court below itself and once the same has been held, it was totally erroneous on the part of the Court to go-ahead and on the ground of equity ask for the petitioner to return Rs. 18 lakhs, which he had received, and that too, on the plea of the opposite party no. 2, which the Court has construed as a counter plea, even though the opposite party no. 18 lakhs, which he had received, and that too, on the plea of the opposite party no. 2, which the Court has construed as a counter plea, even though the opposite party no. 2 after getting the benefit of bail by order dated 04.05.2013 had till 10.03.2014 and even till date, not having filed any application either before the same Court for any modification of the terms and conditions of the bail or before a superior Court for seeking such modification. With regard to the stand of the opposite party no. 2 that the order granting bail being interlocutory is not hit by the limitation of Section 362 of the Code, learned counsel submitted that both operate under different circumstances. It was submitted that in the present case, the jurisdiction of the Court is limited to the power under Section 437 (5) of the Code which has also been exercised by the Court as it has been quoted in the impugned order itself. 6. Learned counsel submitted that not only this, even after the order impugned, the opposite party no. 2 obtained provisional bail on the ground of illness of his wife by order dated 31.07.2014 with the condition to surrender latest by 30.08.2014 but inspite of his prayer for extension having been rejected, till date, he has not appeared before the Court and has been declared an absconder and warrant of arrest has also been issued against him. 7. Learned A.P.P. submitted that the order granting bail itself was on the basis of certain conditions in the compromise and once such condition was fulfilled, it was not proper for the Court to direct the petitioner to deposit the amount which had already been received by him for release of the opposite party no. 2. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out. With regard to the stand taken by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds that a case for interference has been made out. With regard to the stand taken by learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that the power is with the Court to pass such an order as it is not hit by the bar of Section 362 of the Code, as has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is not applicable in the present case as the Court has exercised specific power under Section 437(5) of the Code, which is a self contained provision. Thus, Section 362 has no bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. Coming to the merits of the matter, as per the compromise, Rs. 8 lakhs cash was paid to the petitioner prior to the compromise and Rs. 10 lakhs draft, though submitted to the Court, but with the agreement that it would be handed over to the petitioner for encashment and thereafter at a gap of every one month, post dated cheques which were submitted to the Court were to be given to the petitioner for encashment and based on that, the period of bail of the opposite party no. 2 was to be extended. Thus, to that extent the benefit of being on bail initially was subject to payment of Rs. 18 lakhs, which was received by the petitioner and the opposite party no. 2 also derived the benefit of bail and thereafter one by one the cheques was to be given to the petitioner for being encashed. Thus, for such period, opposite party no. 2 having been derived the privilege of bail which was in lieu of him paying Rs. 18 lakhs to the petitioner, there cannot be any equity in asking the petitioner to return the amount when not only for one month but for more than 10 months, the opposite party no. 2 has remained on bail, insptie of him having defaulted in payment of the remaining amount through 6 post dated cheques, the last being on 25.10.2013. Thus, such ground of equity taken by the Court below, in the considered opinion of this Court, is totally erroneous and misplaced. 2 has remained on bail, insptie of him having defaulted in payment of the remaining amount through 6 post dated cheques, the last being on 25.10.2013. Thus, such ground of equity taken by the Court below, in the considered opinion of this Court, is totally erroneous and misplaced. Further, at the cost of repetition, such power does not vest in the Court below while considering an application under Section 437 (5) of the Code relating to cancellation of the bail earlier granted by that Court, and such order becomes totally beyond jurisdiction. 10. For reasons aforesaid, the application is allowed. The portion of the order by which there is a direction to the petitioner to deposit a demand draft of Rs. 18 lakhs in the Court Nazarat stands quashed. 11. The petitioner by way of supplementary affidavit has brought on record the entire order sheet of the Court in G.R. No. 3611 of 2012 corresponding to S.K. Puri P.S. Case No. 168 of 2012. From the same, it transpires that right from August, 2014 the opposite party no. 2 is absconding and evading the due process of law. Thus, the Court finds that this is a fit case where it is required to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, both to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 12. Accordingly, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna is directed constitute a team for ensuring that the opposite party no. 2 is taken into custody and brought before the Court below in terms of his bail having been cancelled and he being declared an absconder and also warrant of arrest issued against him. 13. The Court, for the purposes of convenience, deems it proper to implead the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna as opposite party no. 3. Let necessary correction be made in the cause title of the application by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day. 14. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. accepts notice on behalf of the newly added opposite party no. 3. He shall communicate the order to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna for compliance. 3. Let necessary correction be made in the cause title of the application by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day. 14. Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, learned A.P.P. accepts notice on behalf of the newly added opposite party no. 3. He shall communicate the order to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna for compliance. Though, the matter stands disposed off on merit, but it shall be listed under the heading ‘For Orders’ on 25th February, 2019, when a report shall be submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna with regard to compliance of the present order. 15. Let the name of Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay be printed in the cause list in the column of the opposite parties.