ORDER : - Present petition is filed under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 by this Court vide order dated 10-5-2021 passed in MCRC No. 19588 of 2021. 2. The facts in brief to decide the present petition are that applicant /prosecutrix lodged a report against respondent No. 2/accused, who is her brother-in-law, about commission of rape upon her and thereafter, blackmailing her on the basis of some nude photographs of the prosecutrix. Respondent No. 2 also threatened to kill the prosecutrix and used filthy language. On aforesaid, the FIR was registered against respondent No. 2 for offence punishable under sections 376, 294, 506 and 384 of IPC at Police Station Maharajpura, District Gwalior. During investigation, on 16-3-2021, respondent No. 2/accused was arrested and thereafter, he filed the bail application before this Court bearing MCRC No. 19588 of 2021 and the same was allowed vide order dated 10-5-2021 and respondent No. 2 was released on bail. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that while granting bail to respondent No. 2/accused, this Court had imposed all the conditions and in the bail order following condition has been specifically imposed :— “7. It is made clear that the release warrant of the present applicant be prepared after verification of the fact that there is no criminal antecedent against the present applicant.” 4. During the course of arguments also, it was submitted by the counsel for respondent No. 2/accused (applicant in the bail application) that “applicant is a first offender as per the information given to him by the family members of the applicant and there are no other cases registered and pending against the applicant”. 5. However, despite the directions of this Court to file affidavit with respect to criminal history, no affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2 with intention to mislead this Court and made wrong statement before the Court. It was the contention of the prosecutrix from the beginning that respondent No. 2 /accused is having criminal background and the same is corroborated by the certified copy of the FIR bearing Crime No. 0769 of 2020 (Annexure A-3) registered at Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). In view of the above, it is prayed that bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused be cancelled. In view of the above, it is prayed that bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused be cancelled. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the case law of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U. P. and another, AIR 2022 SC 2514 and Jayshreebaa Anirruddhsinh Gohil vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 4 GLR 2787 . 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and argued that before granting benefit of bail to respondent No. 2, prosecution/investigating agency has specifically mentioned that no case is registered against respondent No. 2 at Kanpur (U.P.), Bharatpur (Rajasthan) and Mathura( U.P.). It is further argued that applicant had no knowledge about the FIR registered against him at Crime No. 0769 of 2020, therefore, no ground is made out for cancellation of bail. 7. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the available record. 8. The perusal of record reveals that in MCRC No. 19588 of 2021, at the time of hearing on 30-4-2021, counsel for the petitioner/prosecutrix specifically stated before Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that respondent No. 2/accused has a criminal history and three more criminal cases are registered against him in the district of Bharatpur (Rajasthan), Mathura (U.P.) and Kanpur (U.P.). Upon this, Co-ordinate Bench directed the counsel for the State to call for the requisition in respect to the criminal history of respondent No. 2/accused from aforesaid districts. The record further reveals that on 10-5-2021, counsel for respondent No. 2/accused has specifically stated that respondent No. 2 is the first offender and there are no other criminal cases registered against him. Counsel for the State opposed the bail application of respondent No. 2, however, he pointed out that report has been received from districts Bharatpur (Rajasthan) and Mathura (U.P.) to the effect that no criminal case is registered against respondent No. 2/accused. He has further stated that as far as district Kanpur (U.P.) is concerned, no report has been received by the State authority. Thereafter, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the counsel for respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit to the aforesaid effect that no other criminal case is registered against respondent No. 2, however, no such affidavit was filed. However, respondent No. 2 made specific statement before Co-ordinate Bench that he is the first offender and is having no criminal antecedents. Thereafter, the Co-ordinate Bench directed the counsel for respondent No. 2 to file an affidavit to the aforesaid effect that no other criminal case is registered against respondent No. 2, however, no such affidavit was filed. However, respondent No. 2 made specific statement before Co-ordinate Bench that he is the first offender and is having no criminal antecedents. Upon aforesaid submission of respondent No. 2/accused, Co-ordinate Bench allowed his bail application subject to verification of the fact that applicant is the first offender. 9. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear as crystal that it was the specific contention of respondent No. 2/accused that he is the first offender and no other criminal case is registered against him. However, despite the direction of Co-ordinate Bench, no affidavit to the aforesaid effect was filed. Certified copy of the FIR bearing Crime No. 0769 of 2020 (Annexure A-3) registered at Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) reveals that before the present case, aforesaid FIR was registered against respondent No. 2/accused for offence under sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 120-B of IPC despite respondent No. 2 suppressed this fact and did not file the affidavit in this regard as directed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 10. In view of the fact that bail application of respondent No. 2/accused was considered subject to verification of the fact that he is the first offender and now it has been found that before the present case, one more criminal case was registered against him, present application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2/accused is hereby allowed and the order dated 10-5-2021 passed in MCRC No. 19588 of 2021. 11. Consequently, the bail bonds are cancelled. Respondent No. 2 is directed to surrender within seven days from today before the concerned trial Court /police station. 12. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information and necessary compliance.