HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 25/2020
Buddhi Prasad S/o Shri Maheshwari, Aged About 58 Years, R/o
Uchhain Dist. Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Ravi Saxena S/o Shri Amar Saxena, R/o Plot No 214
Keshar Nagar Ps Muhana Jaipur Raj. Director Of Krishna
Dream Developer Opc Private Limited Office At Krishna
Tower First Floor-10 Kailashpuri Opposite Bmw Showroom
Tonk Road Durgapura Jaipur
----Respondents
For Complainant- : Mr. Sudhir Jain
Petitioner(s)
For Accused- : Mr. Deepak Chauhan, through VC
Respondent(s) : Mr. Hitesh Kumar
For State : Mr. Riyasat Ali, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
04/03/2021
1. Complainant-Petitioner has filed this bail cancellation
application under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No. 566/2017 was registered at Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur for offences under Sections 420, 406 & 120-B of I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the complainant-petitioner that the accused-respondent has not complied with the terms of the order dated 13.04.2018 passed by this Court, while allowing the bail application of the accused-respondent. It is also contended that the accused-respondent has not got the sale deed registered in favour of the complainant-petitioner. It is further contended that (Downloaded on 11/03/2021 at 08:49:37 PM) (2 of 2) [CRLBC-25/2020] a notice was also served upon the accused-respondent on 30.01.2020 and a copy of demand draft is also produced before the Court. It is contended that the accused-respondent is now disputing the site at which the property is situated.
4. Counsel for the accused-respondent has opposed the bail cancellation application. It is contended that a notice was given by the accused-respondent on 15.11.2019 asking the complainant- petitioner to pay the balance amount. Now, complainant-petitioner is disputing the site at which the property is situated.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. In the order dated 13.04.2018, it was specifically mentioned that the complainant-petitioner would pay the balance amount within one month of release of the accused-respondent from jail. Notice by the accused-respondent was given on 15.11.2019 even thereafter, the amount was not paid. Now a dispute has been raised with regard to the property which has to be sold by the accused-respondent.
7. Considering the facts that the dispute with regard to the property cannot be decided by this Court and as far as the compliance of the order dated 13.04.2018 is concerned, complainant himself has not paid the balance amount within the time provided by the Court in the order dated 13.04.2018, hence, no ground is made out for cancelling the bail granted by this Court.
8. This bail cancellation application is accordingly, dismissed.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J NIKHIL KR. YADAV /1 (Downloaded on 11/03/2021 at 08:49:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)