ORDER : 1. The present criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed by the petitioner to cancel the bail granted to respondent No. 2 vide order dated 28.01.2021 passed by this Court in MCRC No. 9348 of 2020. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that respondent No. 2 filed MCRC No. 9348/2020 on 11.12.2020 for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 877/2020 registered at Police Station-Civil Lines, Bilaspur on 28.11.2020 for commission of offence under Section 120B & 420 of IPC. 3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that in the year 2012, respondent No. 2 got an agreement fraudulently executed with complainant/ petitioner’s mother namely Isharani Mitra Garhewal for sale of land bearing Khasra No. 316/34 admeasuring 1800 sq.ft. of the complainant in favour of the respondent No. 2 for a consideration of 90 lacs on the assurance that respondent No.2 would get a house constructed for complainant/petitioner’s mother on the land costing at Rs. 20 lacs, but respondent No. 2 has not given any amount to the complainant, but sold some portion of the land in the year 2017 on a higher price. Thus, respondent No. 2 cheated the complainant/petitioner’s mother, got registered the property in his name and thereby committed offence under Section 420 & 120B of IPC. The petitioner’s mother has raised objection on 22.12.2020 for releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an application regarding the compromised arrived between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2 on 20.01.2021. The petitioner’s mother has raised objection on 22.12.2020 for releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 filed an application regarding the compromised arrived between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2 on 20.01.2021. The relevant clause of the agreement reads as under:- ^^3- ;g fd mDr lgefr i= ds vuqlkj eq>s bZ'kk jkuh fe=k ,oa iqrqy fe=k dks rhl yk[k ¼3000000½ :i;s nsus Fks vkSj mDr 1800 lkS oxZ fQV esa ls esjs uke cph gqbZ 900 oxZ fQV tehu iqu% bZ'kk jkuh fe=k vkSj iqrqy fe=k ds uke fcuk iSls ds jftLVªh djkuh FkhA 5- ;g fd eSa fodYi ds :i esa iSrhl yk[k :i;s ¼3500000½ :i;s vkSj [kljk uEcj 138@10 xzke vesjh esa 900 oxZ fQV dk Mk;oVsZM vkoklh; IykWV fcuk izfrQy ds bZ'kkjkuh fe=k dks vkSj iqrqy fe=k dks nsus ds fy, rS;kj gwaA 6- mDr iSrhl yk[k :i;s ,oa IykWV dk Hkqxrku pkj fd'rksa esa fuEu rjhds ls fd;k tk;sxk igyk fd'r& 10 yk[k :i;s bl bdjkj ukek dks gLrk{kfjr djrs le; iznku d:axkA nwljh fd'r& 10 yk[k :i;s dh nwljh fd'r bdjkj ukek dh frfFk ds nks ekg ds HkhrjA rhljh fd'r& 900 oxZ fQV dk Mk;oVsZM vkoklh; IykWV bdjkj ukek frfFk ds rhu ekg ds Hkhrj bZ'kk jkuh fe=k vkSj iqrqy fe=k ds uke fcuk izfrQy ¼iSlk½ ds jftLVªh 'kqYd vkSj LVkWEi M~;wVh nksuksa i{k vk/kk&vk/kk ogu djsaxsA pkSFkh fd'r& 'ks"k 15 ykk[k :i;s bdjkj ukek dh frfFk ds N% ekg ds Hkhrj iznku fd;s tk;saxsA 10- esjs }kjk mijksDr of.kZr 'krksZa ds le;c) iw.kZ ifjikyu djus ij bZ'kk jkuh fe=k vkSj iqrqy fe=k }kjk blh fookn esa ntZ vijk/k Ø- 877@2020 esa vkxs dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dh tk;sxh vkSj l{ke U;k;ky; esa le>kSrk fd;k tk;sxk ,oa eqaxsyh ukdk fLFkr [kljk Øekad 316@34 fookn eqDr gks tk;sxhA** 4. Since the agreement was executed between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2, therefore, the State as well as the petitioner’s mother has raised no objection in releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. Since the agreement was executed between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2, therefore, the State as well as the petitioner’s mother has raised no objection in releasing respondent No. 2 on bail. Considering the submission by either side, this Court has passed the order releasing respondent No. 2 on bail by observing as under:- “charge-sheet has already been filed, in particular fact that both the parties are ready to compromise as contended by their counsel, the applicant has no criminal antecedent and there is likelyhood of the applicant tampering with the evidence or absconding as admitted by both the counsel and the conclusion of trial, may take sometime, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that present is a fit case for grant of bail to the applicant.” 5. Respondent No. 2 was released on bail in view of abovestated agreement executed between the petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2, but respondent No. 2 has not complied with the terms of agreements, on which, he was released on bail, therefore, the petitioner has filed present CRMP for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C. mainly contending that all of a sudden, the petitioner’s mother expired on 01.03.2021, but after her death, respondent No. 2 is not taking any steps to comply with the terms of agreement which is in violation of condition of the bail, therefore, prayed for cancellation of bail. 6. This Court has taken cognizance of the application and issued notice to the respondents on 22.02.2022. Respondent No. 2 filed reply contending that the said agreement was executed on 20.01.2021, on that day, respondent No. 2 was in judicial custody, but the petitioner using their power, sources pressurizing respondent No. 2 on account of ill-health has compelled him to put signature. He would further submit that on 20.01.2021, the petitioner and her family member i.e. brother Pulak Sarkar tampered and tortured wife of respondent No. 1 and collected Rs. 1 lac. He would further submit that the petitioner has earlier filed petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was withdrawn on 22.03.2021. It has been further contended that brother of petitioner’s mother Pulak Sarkar and other are not legal heirs of Isharani Mitra who expired on 01.03.2021. As such, it is forgery committed by them. 1 lac. He would further submit that the petitioner has earlier filed petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. which was withdrawn on 22.03.2021. It has been further contended that brother of petitioner’s mother Pulak Sarkar and other are not legal heirs of Isharani Mitra who expired on 01.03.2021. As such, it is forgery committed by them. He would further submit that respondent No. 2 has paid Rs. 18 lacs including the amount Rs. 7,25,000/- which has been deposited before this Court and would pray for dismissal of the petition for cancellation of bail. 7. The order-sheets of the case, which are extracted below would demonstrate that respondent No. 2 has not deliberately complied with the agreement. The details of the proceedings taken place before this Court, are in table form, as under:- Orders Date Orders 01.04.2022 Counsel for the R.2 is directed to inform the R.2 to appear before this Court in person on 08.04.2022. list this case on 08.04.2022. 08.04.2022 Both the parties are present before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent prays for and is granted four weeks time to execute the agreement as undertaken before this Court and also file reply. List this case on 06.05.2022. 06.05.2022 As prayed by learned counsel for respondent, list it after two weeks. 20.06.2022 Learned counsel for R.2 is directed to inform this Court whether sale-deed has been executed or not, on the next day of hearing. List this case on 24.06.2022. 24.06.2022 Respondent No.2 had approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 3971/2022 against the order dated 08.04.2022 of this Court and vide order dated 29.04.2022, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to raise his grievances before this Court. Today, neither respondent No.2 is present in person nor is there any representation on his behalf. Thus, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, looking to the conduct of respondent No.2 disobeying the orders of this Court despite being granted sufficient opportunity, this Court is now left with no other option but to issue a non-bailable warrant against respondent No.2. Let a non-bailable warrant be issued against respondent No.2 through concerned Superintendent of Police for his production before this Court on 12.07.2022 to explain as to whether he has complied with the order dated 08.04.2022 of the Court. List this case on 12.07.2022. Let a non-bailable warrant be issued against respondent No.2 through concerned Superintendent of Police for his production before this Court on 12.07.2022 to explain as to whether he has complied with the order dated 08.04.2022 of the Court. List this case on 12.07.2022. 12.07.2022 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 prays for some time to file a detailed reply. No coercive steps shall be taken against respondent No. 2 till the next date of hearing. As prayed, list this case for further hearing on 15.07.2022 15.07.2022 Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 filed his reply on 14.07.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that today he received the reply from the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and prays for some time to argue the matter. As prayed, list this case for further hearing on 19.07.2022 19.07.2022 Respondent No. 2 Ratnesh Jaiswal has filed an affidavit on 18.07.2022 before this Court in which he stated that he is ready to comply the order of this Court dated 28.01.2021. Mr. Amit Kumar, counsel for the respondent No. 2 would submit that Respondent No. 2 is ready to comply the order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court but some time may be given to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a short time may be given to the respondent No.2. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including order of this Court dated 28.01.2021passed in MCRC No. 9348/2020. Looking to the affidavit dated 18.07.2022 filed by the Respondent No. 2, three months' time is granted to the respondent No. 2 for execution the sale-deed and other formalities as mentioned in the agreement dated 21.01.2021 (Annexure A/1). List this case on 19th October 2022. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner till the next date of hearing. 19.10.2022 As prayed by learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 list this case in the week commencing 14.11.2022. 15.11.2022 In the week commencing 28.11.2022 29.11.2022 Counsel for the Respondent No. 2 seek some instruction and to comply the earlier order passed by this Court. List this case on 06.12.2022. 06.12.2022 List this case on 13.12.2022 13.12.2022 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the agreement was executed between Isha Rani Mitra, Putul Mitra and Ratnesh Jaiswal, however, Putul Mitra has not put her signature in the agreement. List this case on 06.12.2022. 06.12.2022 List this case on 13.12.2022 13.12.2022 3. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the agreement was executed between Isha Rani Mitra, Putul Mitra and Ratnesh Jaiswal, however, Putul Mitra has not put her signature in the agreement. He further submits that Putul Mitra is only entitled for half of the amount in compliance of the agreement but if there are some other legal heirs of deceased Isha Rani Mitra, there would be dispute with regard to succession. State counsel submits that against issuance of non-bailable warrant the respondent No. 2 had preferred an SLP, which was dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme court. 4. This Court is not persuaded with the submission made by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 because once he has made commitment before the Court to comply with the orders passed by this Court while granting bail in terms of the agreement, it would be considered that he is not complying with the conditions stipulated in the said agreement which would result in cancellation of bail. However, Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as a last indulgence the respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 25 lacs in terms of the agreement mentioned above, before the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month, failing which the bail granted earlier shall stand cancelled automatically without further reference to the Court. In the event of amount being deposited by the respondent No. 2 in the office of Registrar General of this Court, the Registrar General is directed to keep the said amount in fixed deposit in any nationalized bank for a period of six months. The fate of that amount will depend on the decision of the application for cancellation of bail. List the case for final hearing in the week commencing 16.01.2023 09.01.2023 Heard on I.A. No. 5/2023 for extension of time for depositing of remaining amount. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that vide order dated 13/12/2022 this Court has directed to the respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs. 25 Lacs within a period of one month else the bail granted to the respondent No.2 shall stand canceled without reference to the Court. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that vide order dated 13/12/2022 this Court has directed to the respondent No. 2 to deposit Rs. 25 Lacs within a period of one month else the bail granted to the respondent No.2 shall stand canceled without reference to the Court. He further submits that he has deposited Rs.4,75,000/- by way of Demand Draft dated 03/01/2022 before the Office of the Registrar General of this Court. He also submits that he is arranging the remaining fund and will deposit in a short span of time. He has shown his bonafide. Therefore, the peremptory order of cancellation of bail may not be given effect to till the next date of hearing. Counsel for the State has opposes and submits that the entire amount should have been deposited and it should have executed sale-deed in favour of the applicant. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, submission made at the bar, the period of depositing the amount is extended till next date of hearing and till then, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 shall not be cancelled. List this case in the week commencing 23rd January 2023. 23.01.2023 Heard on I.A.No.5/23 application for extension of time for depositing of remaining amount. Counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the amount which has to be deposited is very huge some how he has deposited Rs.4,75,000/- and within a day or two days he will deposit Rs.1,50,000/- before the Registry of this Court, therefore, this case may be taken up after a week and he is making all endevours to comply with the earlier order passed by this Court. List this case in week after next. In the meanwhile, it is expected that respondent No.2 shall comply with the earlier order passed by this Court. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the next date of hearing. 06.02.2023 As prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner, list the case in the week after next. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the date of hearing 24.02.2023 At the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 27.02.2023. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. Interim relief granted earlier shall continue till the date of hearing 24.02.2023 At the request made by learned counsel for the petitioner, list this case on 27.02.2023. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 9. From the above recital of facts and incident took place in the matter and from bare perusal of the order dated 28.01.2021, it is quite vivid that this Court has granted bail to respondent No. 2 in view of the agreement arrived at between petitioner’s mother and respondent No. 2. The order-sheets, which have been quoted above would clearly demonstrate that respondent No. 2 by hook and crook did not intend to comply with the terms of agreement despite ample opportunity granted by this Court. Even he has preferred Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3971/2022 before Hon’ble the Supreme Court against the order dated 08.04.2022 passed by this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to re-access the grievance before this Court. This Court has given an opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 2 on 20.06.2022 and 24.06.2022, but on 24.06.2022, neither respondent No. 2 nor his counsel was present, as such, this Court issued a non-bailable warrant against respondent No. 2 which was subsequently not given effect as on 12.07.2022 order of no coercive steps be taken against respondent No. 2 was passed, which was continued till the matter was finally heard by this Court on 27.02.2023. This clearly shows that even after giving ample opportunity to respondent No. 2 to comply with the agreement, he is taking excuse which is not tenable. Even from the records, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 has deposited the amount in the name of Registrar General, High Court Chhattisgarh to the tune meager amount of Rs. 7,25,000/- and has paid Rs. 10 lacs, thus total amount of Rs. 17,25,000/- in place of Rs. 35 lacs as agreed by him in the agreement dated 20.01.2021 and has also not executed the sale-deed, thus, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 has deliberately not complied with the terms of agreement despite ample opportunity granted to him on which the bail was granted by this Court. 10. 17,25,000/- in place of Rs. 35 lacs as agreed by him in the agreement dated 20.01.2021 and has also not executed the sale-deed, thus, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 has deliberately not complied with the terms of agreement despite ample opportunity granted to him on which the bail was granted by this Court. 10. In view of the above factual matrix, this Court has to examine whether any circumstances are available on record to exercise the power of cancellation of bail as provided under Section 439(2) of the Cr.P.C. For better understanding the question proposed by this Court, it is expedient for this Court to extract Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as under:- “439. Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail.-- (1) A High Court or Court of Session may direct- (a) that any person accused of an offence and in custody be released on bail, and if the offence is of the nature specified in subsection (3) of section 437, may impose any condition which it considers necessary for the purposes mentioned in that subsection; (b) that any condition imposed by a Magistrate when releasing an person on bail be set aside or modified: Provided that the High Court or the Court of Session shall, before granting bail to a person who is accused of an offence which is triable exclusively by the Court of Session or which, though not so triable, is punishable with imprisonment for life, give notice of the application for bail to the Public Prosecutor unless it is, for reasons to be recorded in writing, of opinion that it is not practicable to give such notice. (2) A High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail under this Chapter be arrested and commit him to custody.” 11. The cancellation of bail by the Court while exercising power conferred under Section 439 (2) of the Cr.P.C., has come up for consideration before Hon’ble the Supreme Court in various judgments. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & another, reported in AIR 2022 SC 2514 , has held at paragraph 30 to 34 as under:- “30. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Deepak Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & another, reported in AIR 2022 SC 2514 , has held at paragraph 30 to 34 as under:- “30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted). A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram And Others Vs. State of Haryana laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are :- (i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of Justice (ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice (iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner (iv) Possibility of accused absconding (v) Likelihood of/actual misuse of bail (vi) Likelihood of the accused tampering with the evidence or threatening witnesses. 31. It is no doubt true that cancellation of bail cannot be limited to the occurrence of supervening circumstances. This Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Following are the illustrative circumstances where the bail can be cancelled :- (a) Where the court granting bail takes into account irrelevant material of substantial nature and not trivial nature while ignoring relevant material on record. (b) Where the court granting bail overlooks the influential position of the accused in comparison to the victim of abuse or the witnesses especially when there is prima facie misuse of position and power over the victim. (c) Where the past criminal record and conduct of the accused is completely ignored while granting bail. (d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. (e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. (f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. (d) Where bail has been granted on untenable grounds. (e) Where serious discrepancies are found in the order granting bail thereby causing prejudice to justice. (f) Where the grant of bail was not appropriate in the first place given the very serious nature of the charges against the accused which disentitles him for bail and thus cannot be justified. (g) When the order granting bail is apparently whimsical, capricious and perverse in the facts of the given case. 32. In Neeru Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh And Another, the accused was granted bail by the High Court. In an appeal against the order of the High Court, a two-Judge Bench of this Court examined the precedents on the principles that guide grant of bail and observed as under :- “12…It is well settled in law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether than an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case, the relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the application for bail and have not been taken note of bail or it is founded on irrelevant considerations, indisputably the superior court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and is in a separate realm. While dealing with a case of second nature, the Court does not dwell upon the violation of conditions by the accused or the supervening circumstances that have happened subsequently. It, on the contrary, delves into the justifiability and the soundness of the order passed by the Court” 33. This Court in Mahipal (Supra) held that: - “17. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. Where a court considering an application for bail fails to consider relevant factors, an appellate court may justifiably set aside the order granting bail. An appellate court is thus required to consider whether the order granting bail suffers from a non-application of mind or is not borne out from a prima facie view of the evidence on record. It is thus necessary for this Court to assess whether, on the basis of the evidentiary record, there existed a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the crime, also taking into account the seriousness of the crime and the severity of the punishment.” 34. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Prakash Kadam And Others Vs. Ram Prasad Vishwanath Gupta And Another, held that:- “18. In considering whether to cancel the bail, the court has also to consider the gravity and nature of the offence, prima facie case against the accused, the position and standing of the accused, etc. if there are serious allegations against the accused, his bail may be cancelled even if he has not misused the bail granted to him. 19. In our opinion, there is no absolute rule that once bail is granted to the accused then it can only be cancelled if there is likelihood of misuse of bail. that factor, though no doubt important, is not the only factor. There are several other factors also which may be seen while deciding to cancel the bail.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kanwar Singh Meena Vs. State of Rajsthan and Another reported in (2012) 12 SCC 180 has held at paragraph 10, which reads as under :- “10. Thus, Section 439 of the Code confers very wide powers on the High Court and the Court of Sessions regarding bail. But, while granting bail, the High Court and the Sessions Court are guided by the same considerations as other courts. That is to say, the gravity of the crime, the character of the evidence, position and status of the accused with reference to the victim and witnesses, the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice and repeating the offence, the possibility of his tampering with the witnesses and obstructing the course of justice and such other grounds are required to be taken into consideration. Each criminal case presents its own peculiar factual scenario and, therefore, certain grounds peculiar to a particular case may have to be taken into account by the court. The court has to only opine as to whether there is prima facie case against the accused. The court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial. While canceling bail under Section 439(2) of the Code, the primary considerations which weigh with the court are whether the accused is likely to tamper with the evidence or interfere or attempt to interfere with the due course of justice or evade the due course of justice. But, that is not all. The High Court or the Sessions Court can cancel bail even in cases where the order granting bail suffers from serious infirmities resulting in miscarriage of justice. If the court granting bail ignores relevant materials indicating prima facie involvement of the accused or takes into account irrelevant material, which has no relevance to the question of grant of bail to the accused, the High Court or the Sessions Court would be justified in cancelling the bail. Such orders are against the well recognized principles underlying the power to grant bail. Such orders are legally infirm and vulnerable leading to miscarriage of justice and absence of supervening circumstances such as the propensity of the accused to tamper with the evidence, to flee from justice, etc. would not deter the court from cancelling the bail. The High Court or the Sessions Court is bound to cancel such bail orders particularly when they are passed releasing accused involved in heinous crimes because they ultimately result in weakening the prosecution case and have adverse impact on the society. Needless to say that though the powers of this court are much wider, this court is equally guided by the above principles in the matter of grant or cancellation of bail.” 13. Now coming to the facts of the case and legal position as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 despite ample opportunity of hearing has not fulfilled the conditions of bail and deliberately deprived petitioner’s mother who expired on 01.03.2021 without being getting fruits of the litigation which is pending since 30.11.2017. Now coming to the facts of the case and legal position as held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that respondent No. 2 despite ample opportunity of hearing has not fulfilled the conditions of bail and deliberately deprived petitioner’s mother who expired on 01.03.2021 without being getting fruits of the litigation which is pending since 30.11.2017. Thus, there is sufficient material on record for this Court to cancel the bail granted to respondent N. 2 on 28.01.2021. 14. Accordingly, the instant CRMP is allowed. The bail granted to respondent No. 2 by this Court in MCRC No. 9348/2020 on 28.01.2021 is cancelled and he will be taken into custody forthwith. 15. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.