Buddhi Prasad S/O Shri Maheshwari ... vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 2136 Raj/2

          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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)