S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 4225/2014 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1316/2013. Case: Sandeep Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court
| Case Number | S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 4225/2014 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1316/2013 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Ronak Dixit, Adv. and For Respondents: Vivek Goyal and Jitendra Shrimali, P.P. |
| Judges | Banwari Lal Sharma, J. |
| Issue | Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 |
| Judgement Date | February 06, 2017 |
| Court | Rajasthan High Court |
Order:
Banwari Lal Sharma, J.
-
By this application seeking cancellation of bail, petitioner complainant prayed to cancel the order dated 27/02/2013 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Application No. 1316/2013 (Anil Kumar Sethi Vs. State of Rajasthan) by which Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the second bail application of respondent accused in FIR No. 269/2011 registered at Police Station Vidhayakpuri, Jaipur Metropolitan, District Jaipur City (South).
-
Learned counsel for petitioner Shri Ronak Dixit submits that the aforesaid bail was allowed after considering the fact of settlement arrived at between the parties and the compromise as well as the amended compromise deed had been placed on record before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the application of respondent accused. He submits that since respondent accused failed to comply the conditions of agreement after bail order, therefore, the bail order dated 27.02.2013 may be cancelled. Learned counsel relied on Avinash Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State (Nct of Delhi) & Ors. Decided by Single Bench of Delhi High Court on 22.03.2005 reported in 119 (2005) DLT 1.
-
Learned PP. Shri Jitendra Shrimali and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent accused Shri Vivek Goyal submit that if any condition is imposed by the Court and there is breach of condition by the accused, then bail can be cancelled that too promptly. They submit that in the case in hand parties entered into compromise outside the Court and submitted their compromise before the Court. As per learned counsel for respondent accused in pursuance of compromise made payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- by way of Demand Draft to petitioner complainant and for remaining amount post dated cheque was given which was accepted by the petitioner complainant. Therefore, considering the fact of compromise, Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed the bail application dated 27.02.2013. Shri Vivek Goyal further submits that no condition was imposed by the Court while allowing the bail application rather parties settled their dispute amicably outside the Court. If there is any breach, then that is the matter of Civil dispute. Further, respondent accused has already filed recovery suit which was dismissed and petitioner complainant initiated prosecution under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the respondent accused which is pending before the Trial Court. Therefore, no occasion arises for cancellation of bail. They submit that...
To continue reading
Request your trial