Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Vinit Kumar Mathur, J

The present application has been filed for cancellation of bail granted by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2020 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 1430/2020.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar has violated the condition of the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2020 and therefore, the benefit of enlargement of the bail to respondent No.2 Shiv Kumar may be cancelled. Learned counsel further submits that the respondent No.2 had given undertaking before this Court that he will use all his resources and good offices for facilitation of payments due to the applicant complainant within a period of two months from the traders to whom the material has been supplied. He further submits that no efforts have been made by respondent No.2 for recovery of amounts due to the applicant complainant.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 by way of filing a detailed reply has submitted that the respondent No.2 has made all his efforts by approaching the Investigating Officer and by providing all the requisite documents to facilitate the recovery of amount due to the applicant complainant. There is no report on record which shows that the respondent No.2 has not co-operated with the Investigating Agency and therefore, the condition imposed by this Court has been religiously obeyed by the respondent No.2 after his release from jail.

Learned Public Prosecutor has also not stated about the non-cooperation of the respondent No.2 with the Investigating Agency.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone through the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2020 as well as the reply filed by respondent No.2.

It is borne out from the reply that the respondent No.2 has made a number of communications establishing the fact that he has cooperated with the Investigating Agency for recovery of the amount due to the applicant complainant. It is also borne out from the record that whenever the Investigating Officer has called the respondent No.2, he has appeared before him for all kinds of investigation. Thus, in the humble opinion of this Court, the undertaking given by the respondent No.2 has been complied with and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondent No.2 has violated the condition enumerated in the order dated 30.01.2020 granting bail to the respondent No.2.

In view of the discussion made above, the application for cancellation of bail is bereft of merit and the same is hereby dismissed.