Madan Lal Arora vs Mohan Lal Khurana And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 904 Del

JUDGMENT

Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.

1. This application for cancellation of bail has been pending since 16.12.2002. The application has been filed in respect of an order passed during vacations on 05.07.2002 whereby the anticipatory bail application was allowed and disposed of. The accused was directed to join investigation as and when he was required to do so by the investigating officer. Two points have been raised by the counsel for the applicant in this application for cancellation of bail. The first point is that the petitioner/accused has not joined investigations. As regards this, the learned counsel for the State confirms, on instruction from the I.O., Surender Singh, Inspector, P.S. DIU, East District, Delhi, that the petitioner / accused has, in fact, joined investigation.

The second submission of the counsel for the applicant is that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary inasmuch as, according to her, the petitioner is a professional cheat.

2. This would be a consideration impinging upon the merits of the matter which have been dealt with by the court granting the order dated 05.07.2002. Unless some perversity is pointed out in the order or some condition of bail is not fulfillled, the court does not normally entertain cancellation of bail applications. It is well-settled that cancellation of bail stands entirely on different footing from the consideration of an application for bail.

3. In these circumstances, as no glaring error has been pointed out in the said order dated 05.07.2002 and the condition of joining investigation also stands satisfied, no case for cancellation of bail has been made out. Accordingly, this application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed. dusty.