Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1002 (RAJ)

Omprakash v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-07-02

MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. These applications have been filed seeking cancellation of bail extended to the accused respondents by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020. 2. Drawing attention of this Court towards the order dated 24.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the accused respondents were extended benefit of bail on the undertaking furnished by them to execute and register sale deed in his favour in pursuance of agreement to sale dated 16.06.2014 and 07.12.2016 within a period of one month from the date they are released from custody. He submitted that it was specifically stipulated in the order extending benefit of bail that failing compliance, the benefit of bail shall stand cancelled automatically. He submitted that on an application moved by the applicant-respondents, this Court was pleased, vide order dated 08.07.2020, to extend the time upto 31.07.2020 to execute and register the sale deed in his favour. He submitted that till date, the accused respondents have not complied with the condition on which they were extended benefit of bail and hence, the benefit of bail extended to them may be cancelled. 3. The accused respondent No.2 fairly admitted that the respondents have not executed registered sale deed in favour of the complainant; however, he tried to justify the same stating that the entire sale consideration was already refunded to the petitioner prior to passing of the order dated 24.01.2020. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the application seeking cancellation of the bails. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. The accused respondents were extended benefit of bail on solemn undertaking furnished by them to execute registered sale deed in favour of the complainant within a period of one month from the date they are released from the custody. The release of the petitioners was subject to condition failing which the benefit was liable to be cancelled automatically. Thereafter, the accused respondents moved an application No.156/2020 praying therein for three weeks more time to comply with the condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020. The aforesaid application came to be allowed by order dated 08.07.2020 and the respondents were granted time upto 31.07.2020 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused respondents moved an application No.156/2020 praying therein for three weeks more time to comply with the condition imposed by this Court vide order dated 24.01.2020. The aforesaid application came to be allowed by order dated 08.07.2020 and the respondents were granted time upto 31.07.2020 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of the complainant. The relevant order dated 08.07.2020 reads as under: "Learned counsel for the accused-petitioners prays for three weeks' more time to comply with the conditions imposed by this Court while extending the benefit of bail vide its order dated 24.01.2020. He submits that the accused-petitioners shall execute and register the sale deed in favour of Omprakash on or before 31.07.2020 failing which they will surrender before the jail authorities. The prayer is not opposed by the learned counsel for the complainant. The accused-petitioners are granted time up to 31.07.2020 to execute and register the sale deed in favour of complainant Omprakash in pursuance of the sale agreements dated 16.06.2014 and 17.12.2016. It is made clear that no further extension will be granted and in case of failure on the part of accused-petitioners to execute and register the sale deed within the stipulated period, they would surrender before the jail authorities. The application stands disposed of." 6. It was categorically stated by the accused respondents that failing compliance of the direction, they will surrender before the jail authorities. Now, instead of complying with the direction issued by this Court based on the undertaking furnished by the respondents themselves, they are taking a defence that they have already refunded the entire amount of the sale consideration with the complainant much prior to the passing of the order dated 24.01.2020. Such a defence is totally unacceptable in view of the categorical undertaking furnished by them on 24.01.2020 and as well as at the time of seeking extension of time as the order dated 08.07.2020 reveals. Since, it was specifically directed in the order dated 24.01.2020 that if they fail to comply with the direction contained therein within a period of one month from the date of release, the benefit of bail shall stand cancelled automatically and the period was extended upto 31.07.2020 only, the benefit of bail granted to the accused respondents already stands cancelled. 7. 7. In these circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to cancel the benefit of bail which already stands cancelled automatically. Therefore, these criminal bail cancellation applications are disposed of in terms that the accused petitioners can no more enjoy the benefit of bail in terms of order dated 24.01.2020 and 08.07.2020. They are directed to surrender today itself before the jail authority failing which the S.P. Alwar is directed to effect their arrest immediately and confine them to jail. A copy of this order may be given in the Office of learned Government Advocate-cum-Additional Advocate General today itself for information and compliance. 8. The Office is directed to place a copy of this order in the connected file.