JUDGMENT : 1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing instant bail applications under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of accused-petitioners. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 854/2021 2. Concerned Police Station Mansarovar 3. District Jaipur (South) 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 & 120 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any Section 447 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.5984/2024) 07.05.2024 6.A Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.7288/2024) 18.05.2024 6. B Date of passing of impugned order (SBCRLMB No.7289/2024) 18.05.2024 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they have falsely been implicated in this case only on the basis of the statements of the co-accused. They further submit that the petitioners were neither named in the FIR nor any recovery has been affected at their instance. It is further prayed that no case for the alleged offences is made out against them and their incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioners and they have been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises. Thus, It is prayed that the accused-petitioners may be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant have opposed the submissions advanced at the Bar. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through material as made available to the Court. 5. This Court had cancelled the bail already granted to the co-accused Suresh Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid and the said order is being reproduced hereunder:- “1. The instant application for cancellation of bail has been preferred on behalf of the complainant Mukesh Kumar Agarwal mainly on the grounds of abuse of liberty granted to the accused-respondents so also on the grounds of reasonability and propriety. 2. This court had granted bail to accused Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid vide order dated 22.03.2022 on the premise that the case was triable by the Court of Magistrate and they were in judicial custody and so also looking to the speculated longevity of the trial. 3. 2. This court had granted bail to accused Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid vide order dated 22.03.2022 on the premise that the case was triable by the Court of Magistrate and they were in judicial custody and so also looking to the speculated longevity of the trial. 3. The petitioner moved an application for cancellation of bail granted to the above named accused and a Coordinate bench of this court had dismissed the bail cancellation application vide order dated 29.03.2023. 4. The complainant, aggrieved by the dismissal of application for cancellation of bail, had made approach to Hon’ble the Supreme Court by way of filing a Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8357/2023, which converted into Criminal Appeal No. 1293/2024. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, Hon’ble the Supreme Court has set aside the order passed by a Coordinate bench of this Court dated 29.03.2023 and remit the matter back to this Court for making consideration afresh regarding cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application was restored to its original number. 5. Before proceeding further to discuss the legal aspect of the matter regarding cancellation of bail, it would be apt to mention the legal trajectory of the matter, which is very relevant to discuss the conduct of the accused-respondent. 6. The bail cancellation application was moved before this Court mainly on the ground of post-release conduct of the accused. It was averred in the application that after getting release from the jail on 05.04.2022, some of the accused illegally trespassed into the premise of the petitioner, broke down the CCTV cameras and nameplate installed there. After breaking the lock put on the room, the mischievous persons took away the monitor and hard drive of the CCTV cameras. The matter was informed to the Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City (South) and an FIR No.324/2022 for offence under Sections 447, 380 and 427 of the IPC got lodged. It was specifically mentioned in Para Nos.5 and 6 of the bail cancellation application that the accused-respondents were threatening the complainant on regular basis on phone calls and intimidating him of dire consequences if he dares to proceed against them. Despite sincere efforts made by the police authorities to effect arrest of the associates of the respondents, who were also accused in the case, they could not be apprehended. Despite sincere efforts made by the police authorities to effect arrest of the associates of the respondents, who were also accused in the case, they could not be apprehended. An FIR No.11/2023 got lodged at the Police Station Kudgaon, District Karoli for the offence under Sections 143, 332 and 353 of the IPC revealing that an assault over police personnel's was made with an intent to set free the accused from the custody of the police. Two accused namely Khush and Rakesh were arrested in connection with the above FIR and their bail application was dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Karoli vide order dated 4.04.2023, wherein this fact has been specifically mentioned that the accused Dontesh Jangid and Sanjay Kumar Jangid were actively participating in the incident related to FIR No.11/2023. Under the order of Executive Magistrate, A.D.M. South Jaipur, the property was attached and SHO, Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur was appointed as receiver. Even in this period when the SHO was the receiver of the property, the assailants forcibly barged into plot-in-question and broke the boundary wall. The action of the accused-respondents and the audacity shown by them reflects that they have no respect for law and rather habitual to commit offence. The above fact is reported in FIR No.73/2023 registered at Police Station Mansarovar. Another incident, which is reported in FIR No.1231/2023, registered at the Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City South for the offence under Sections 384, 506 and 120-B of the IPC, revealing that one Jitendra, @ Jitu, threatened the petitioner to withdraw the Special Leave Petition filed by him before Hon’ble the Supreme Court least, he shall be killed. It was reported that the said Jitendra @ Jitu, spread fear upon the petitioner at the behest of the respondents herein. Another FIR No.1368/2023, registered at the Police Station Mansarovar City South, making revelations regarding an incident in which the respondents, along with other accused persons, threatened the witnesses of the petitioner. The witness, Mahendra lodged the above FIR alleging that he was threatened not to become a witness for the petitioner and was also pressured to withdraw his case otherwise, he shall be implicated in a false case. 7. The chequered history is relatable to the FIRs mentioned below:- i. FIR No.11/2023 registered at the Police Station Kudgaon, District Karoli for offence under Sections 143, 323 & 353 of the IPC. ii. 7. The chequered history is relatable to the FIRs mentioned below:- i. FIR No.11/2023 registered at the Police Station Kudgaon, District Karoli for offence under Sections 143, 323 & 353 of the IPC. ii. FIR No. 324/2022, registered at the Police Station Mansarovar, Jaipur City South for the offence under Sections 447, 380 & 427 of the IPC. iii. FIR No. 288/2022 registered at the Police Station Bajaj Nagar, Jaipur City East for the offence under Sections 384, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of the IPC. iv. FIR No.1368/2023 registered at the Police Station Mansarovar Jaipur City South for the offence under Sections 384 & 506 of the IPC. 8. Now, adverting to the facts of the case, which narrates that the complainant purchased a plot No. A-56 in Padam Vihar Yojana of Buniyadi Vikas Grah Nirman Society from one Suresh Singh Rao and claimed to have received a patta in his favour. As per the allegations, one Raj Rani Mittal, conspiring with the accused- respondent Deepak Jangid and others had sold the property to Deepak Jangid through a fake sale document. There are allegations that accused Raj Rani Mittal, Vijendra Jangid, Deepak Jangid and others had prepared a false documents of the plot mentioned above. The material as made available to this Court including the cutting of newspaper publication showing the instance of the police that several fake documents were recovered. Around 100 fake allotment letters and 400 seals of the Office of Collector and other officers were recovered from some accused persons. It is revealing that a racket was running to usurp possession of the plot vacant lying for five years and more without possession and in which the gang members first get possession and then used to prepare false title documents. In an another matter, a gang was trapped by the police having in possession of fake patta, receipts, site plan of JDA Corporation and Housing Board. Though at this stage, this Court is not giving any final opinion in this regard, however, at the instance of the police officer and complainant, it is vehemently argued that the respondents are indulged in the aforementioned activities. 9. Though at this stage, this Court is not giving any final opinion in this regard, however, at the instance of the police officer and complainant, it is vehemently argued that the respondents are indulged in the aforementioned activities. 9. The bail jurisprudence mainly revolves around the conduct of the accused, more particularly the fact that whether upon release, he will not hamper or tamper the prosecution evidence or he will be readily available for the trial to continue the smooth course of investigation or that he would not impede the course of judicial proceeding. Wilful availability of the accused is surely a paramount consideration while adjudicating a bail plea. 10. Here in this case, the application for cancellation of bail was first listed on 25.04.2022, taking note of serious assertions against the accused regarding misuse of liberty. This Court had directed the learned Public Prosecutor to furnish a factual report. On 27.06.2022, it was observed in the order sheet that criminal cases were lodged against the respondents subsequent to their release and looking to the above, notices were issued to the respondents No. 2 and 3. On several occasions, the matter got adjourned for want of service of the accused-respondents No.2 & 3 and for the other reasons. On 28.02.2023, this Court went to show its anguish over the situation in which the police personnel failed to know the whereabouts of the accused-respondents and as a result of which, they could not be notified regarding the plea of cancellation of bail. Despite several reminders, on 28.02.2023, again notices were issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 and the same were sent to the Superintendent of Police, Karoli as well as to the ACP Mansarovar and as per report, the notices were received by the respondents. In the meantime, the cancellation application was dismissed on 29.03.2023 and as mentioned above, the case was re-registered on 21.03.2024. Notices were again issued to respondents No. 2 and 3 made returnable on 16.04.2024; the same were forwarded to the Commissioner of Police, Jaipur. On 24.04.2024, the Police Officer present in person before the Court had assured that they would do all the needful for effecting service upon the respondents. It was also apprised to this Court on the day that the accused persons were arrested with other accused in an another case for accusation of making an assault over police party. On 24.04.2024, the Police Officer present in person before the Court had assured that they would do all the needful for effecting service upon the respondents. It was also apprised to this Court on the day that the accused persons were arrested with other accused in an another case for accusation of making an assault over police party. On 05.07.2024 it was reported that advocate Mr. Akshay associate to Mr. Deepak Chauhan, advocate had sought some time to file fresh Vakalatnama on behalf of the accused-respondents but later he submitted that there had been no contact between them and the respondents therefore shown his inability to assist the Court. 11. Observing the new circumstances prevailing in the matter, this Court went to issue warrant of arrest to secure presence of the respondents before the Court and forwarded the same to Commissioner of Police, Jaipur. On 30.08.2024, learned counsel Shri Deepak Chauhan put appearance on behalf of the private respondents and thus, the accused respondents could have been notified regarding legal process after long run efforts. 12. Heard Shri Kapil Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor so also Shri Deepak Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and gone through the niceties of the matter. 13. This Court is guided by the principle of law prevailing in the matter as propounded by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirath Singh Jadeja vs State of Gujarat 1984 SC 372 as well as in the another landmark judgment rendered in the case of Daulat Ram and others versus state of Haryana 1985 1 SCC 439. Ofcourse, rejection of bail in a non-cognizable offence at the initial stage and cancellation of bail already granted, have to be considered and dealt with on different basis. The factors and parameters which are to be taken care at of the time of granting bail and at the time of hearing an application for cancellation of bail are quietly distinct. A bail already granted should only be cancelled when very cogent, over-whelming, aggravating or super-winning circumstances are put before the Court to pass an order directing cancellation of bail already granted. A bail already granted should only be cancelled when very cogent, over-whelming, aggravating or super-winning circumstances are put before the Court to pass an order directing cancellation of bail already granted. The ground for cancellation of bail broadly include interference by the accused released on bail in the investigation or judicial proceeding or his attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or an attempt to evade the due course of justice or there appears reasonable ground to believe that the liberty has been misused or the concession of bail granted to the accused has been abused in any manner, subject to satisfaction of the Court. On the basis of the material referred above on record, the Court can pass an order for cancellation of bail. The apprehension that accused would flee from justice or he would not be readily available for the trial or he would impede the course of judicial proceeding are yet another reasons justifying the cancellation of bail. Certainly, the bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner and unless super-winning circumstances renders it no longer conducive by concession of bail during the trial, the bail once granted should not be cancelled. 14. The circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraphs and what has transpired before this Court after moving of the cancellation of bail petition and the hard task required to secure the presence of the accused before this Court so as to notify them regarding the plea for cancellation of bail persuading this Court that the apprehensions and the assertions made by the petitioner-complainant are well founded that the accused are abusing the liberty granted in their favour. The number of cases lodged against the respondents post their release on bail amongst which one relates to making an assault over the police party, who went to apprehend the accused giving reasonable ground to presume to this Court that the accused respondents do not deserve to retain freedom. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has also echoed with the learned counsel for the petitioner when takes to the antecedents and conduct of the accused. 15. Learned Public Prosecutor has also echoed with the learned counsel for the petitioner when takes to the antecedents and conduct of the accused. The fact that a gang is operating in taking possession of such plots which are lying vacant for a long and then taking possession over it and making false documents so also the reasonable possibility of the petitioner’s nexus with them is further aggravating the situation persuading this Court to cancel the order of bail already granted to them. 16. The criminal antecedents of the accused are also a factor for consideration of the application for cancellation of bail. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Neeru Yadav Vs. State of UP, 2014(16) SCC 508 has discussed the position of law relating to the conduct of an accused. For ready reference, the relevant paragraphs of the judgment are being reproduced herein below:- “13. We will be failing in our duty if we do not take note of the concept of liberty and its curtailment by law. It is an established fact that a crime though committed against an individual, in all cases it does not retain an individual character. It, on occasions and in certain offences, accentuates and causes harm to the society. The victim may be an individual, but in the ultimate eventuate, it is the society which is the victim. A crime, as is understood, creates a dent in the law and order situation. In a civilised society, a crime disturbs orderliness. It affects the peaceful life of the society. An individual can enjoy his liberty which is definitely of paramount value but he cannot be a law unto himself. He cannot cause harm to others. He cannot be a nuisance to the collective. He cannot be a terror to the society; and that is why Edmund Burke, the great English thinker, almost two centuries and a decade back eloquently spoke thus: Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters. 14. E. Barrett Prettyman, a retired Chief Judge of US Court of Appeals had to state thus: In an ordered society of mankind there is no such thing as unrestricted liberty, either of nations or of individuals. Liberty itself is the product of restraints; it is inherently a composite of restraints; it dies when restraints are withdrawn. Freedom, I say, is not an absence of restraints; it is a composite of restraints. There is no liberty without order. There is no order without systematised restraint. Restraints are the substance without which liberty does not exist. They are the essence of liberty. The great problem of the democratic process is not to strip men of restraints merely because they are restraints. The great problem is to design a system of restraints which will nurture the maximum development of man's capabilities, not in a massive globe of faceless animations but as a perfect realisation, of each separate human mind, soul and body; not in mute, motionless meditation but in flashing, thrashing activity. 15. This being the position of law, it is clear as cloudless sky that the High Court has totally ignored the criminal antecedents of the accused. What has weighed with the High Court is the doctrine of parity. A history-sheeter involved in the nature of crimes which we have reproduced hereinabove, are not minor offences so that he is not to be retained in custody, but the crimes are of heinous nature and such crimes, by no stretch of imagination, can be regarded as jejune. Such cases do create a thunder and lightening having the effect potentiality of torrential rain in an analytical mind. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner. 16. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce a few significant lines from Benjamin Disraeli: I repeat……. The law expects the judiciary to be alert while admitting these kind of accused persons to be at large and, therefore, the emphasis is on exercise of discretion judiciously and not in a whimsical manner. 16. In this regard, we may profitably reproduce a few significant lines from Benjamin Disraeli: I repeat……. that all power is a trust-that we are accountable for its exercise- that, from the people and for the people, all springs, and all must exist. 17. That apart, it has to be remembered that justice in its conceptual eventuality and connotative expanse engulfs the magnanimity of the sun, the sternness of mountain, the complexity of creation, the simplicity and humility of a saint and the austerity of a Spartan, but it always remains wedded to rule of law absolutely unshaken, unterrified, unperturbed and loyal. 18. Before parting with the case, we may repeat with profit that it is not an appeal for cancellation of bail as the cancellation is not sought because of supervening circumstances. The annulment of the order passed by the High Court is sought as many relevant factors have not been taken into consideration which includes the criminal antecedents of the accused and that makes the order a deviant one. Therefore, the inevitable result is the lancination of the impugned order. 19. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the High Court is set aside. If the Respondent No. 2 is at large, he shall be taken into custody forthwith; and if he is still in custody because of certain other cases, he shall not be admitted to bail in connection with the present case. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to other cases and simultaneously we also clearly state that our observations in this case are only meant for purpose of setting aside the order granting bail and would have no impact or effect during the trial.” 17. In view of the above, the application for cancellation of bail is allowed and the bail granted to the accused Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid by this Court vide order dated 22.03.2022 passed in SBCRLMB No.2446/2022 is hereby cancelled. Their bail bonds are forfeited. The trial Court shall forthwith take steps to take the accused back into custody so that further proceeding in connection with the case may be proceeded smoothly.” 2. Their bail bonds are forfeited. The trial Court shall forthwith take steps to take the accused back into custody so that further proceeding in connection with the case may be proceeded smoothly.” 2. In this view of the matter and keeping in mind that the petitioners are aide and associates of the aforementioned accused Sanjay Kumar Jangid and Dontesh Jangid and their indulgence in commission of crime in the case at hand and so also looking to their conduct more particularly, the fact that they could have been apprehended by the police after around three years of the incident by making tireless efforts and even victimization of assault thus, this Court do not feel it appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to them. The main consideration at the time of entertaining any bail plea always has been the conduct of the accused and to ensure that if released on bail, he would not impede the course of investigation/trial or that he will cooperate. Here, the petitioners have evaded the process of law for long three years therefore no leniency can be adopted infact their conduct has disentitled them to be released on bail. 3. In view of the above, the instant bail applications having no force, the same are hereby dismissed.