JUDGMENT Vijay Bishnoi, J. - This application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to cancel the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by Additional Sessions Judge, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (for short 'the court below' hereinafter) vide order dated 21.6.2018 in connection with FIR No.84/2018 of Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant had put in appearance before the court below at the time of hearing of bail application preferred on behalf of respondent No.2 in connection with above referred case and submitted a list of criminal cases pending against the respondent No.2, but the trial court did not take into consideration the said list of criminal cases pending against the respondent No.2 and illegally allowed the bail application preferred on behalf of the respondent No.2 and ordered to release him on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that criminal antecedents of accused cannot be ignored and at the time of granting bail to accused, his/her criminal antecedents are to be considered by the Court, however, in the present case, the criminal antecedents of the accused-respondent No.2 were not taken into consideration by the court below. 3. In support of above argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Neeru Yadav V. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2015) AIR SC 3703 . 4. It is also argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 was convicted and sentenced by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jodhpur for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and his sentence was suspended by this Court in D.B. Criminal Appeal No.159/2002, however, while suspending the sentence, this Court imposed a condition that the petitioner shall not leave the local Municipal limits of Phalodi without leave of the Court of A.C.J.M., Phalodi, but the respondent No.2 committed crime in village Dedasari and as such he has violated the condition imposed by this Court and on this ground also, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 by the court below is liable to be cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, prayed that this application for cancellation of bail may kindly be allowed and bail granted to the respondent No.2 in connection with FIR No.84/2018 of Police Station Baap, District Jodhpur by the court below be cancelled. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the application for cancellation of bail and it is argued that though the counsel for the petitioner (complainant) had produced a list of criminal cases pending against the respondent No.2 before the trial court but that list was not correct as in most of the criminal cases mentioned in the said list either the respondent No.2 has been acquitted or the cases came to an end when the bail application was decided by the court below. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has further submitted that so far as the condition imposed by this Court while suspending the sentence to the respondent No.2 in earlier case is considered, it is to be clarified that the respondent No.2 is residing in village Hindalgol since beginning which is not in the municipal limit of Phalodi and, therefore, in such circumstances, it cannot be said that he has violated any condition imposed by this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. Having gone through the impugned order passed by court below, it is clear that the court below had not granted bail to the respondent No.2 in connection with FIR No.84/2018 solely on the ground that no other criminal cases are pending against the petitioner. From para No.6 of the impugned order, it is clear that the court below had allowed the bail application of the respondent No.2 purely on merits after going through the case diary and taking into consideration the facts that cross cases were registered by both the parties; age of the respondent No.2 is around 60 years; he is suffering from some ailment; no recovery of any weapon has been made at his instance and the injuries on the body of the injured were neither grievous nor dangerous to life. 9. In such circumstances, the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the trial court did not take into consideration the criminal antecedents of respondent No.2 is without any basis. 9. In such circumstances, the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that the trial court did not take into consideration the criminal antecedents of respondent No.2 is without any basis. It is also to be noticed that the counsel for the petitioner has not provided details regarding fate of criminal cases ever filed by the petitioner against the respondent No.2. 10. There is no quarrel on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav's case (supra), however, in the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly observed that the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused solely on the basis of parity without looking into the criminal antecedents of the accused. In the present case, the court below has not granted bail to the respondent No.2 on parity but purely on merits. As noticed earlier, the petitioner has failed to provide details regarding fate of criminal cases filed against the respondent No.2. 11. In such circumstances, the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable from the facts of Neeru Yadav's case (supra), on which the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. In view of above discussions, I do not find any merit in this application for cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2. 12. The same is, therefore, rejected.