Cancellation of bail requires cogent evidence of misuse or interference with justice, and mere non-payment of a disputed amount does not suffice.

JUDGMENT :

Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

1. The applicant has preferred this petition under Section 439 (2) of IPC seeking cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2/accused vide order dated 03.08.2023 in Bail petition No. 2131/2023 granted by the learned First Additional Session Judge, Raipur (C.G.) (Annexure P/1).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner along with the other complainants has lodged the First Information Report against the Deepak Kumar Barad who is the CMD of Sai Trust Orissa and the said trust institution was facilitating for baby food and other social works for free. The respondent no. 2 allured the complainants in name of doubling their amount and providing them permanent job with fixed salary and appointed the petitioner as CG State Director at Delhi for receiving International Foreign Fund and by deceiving them has cheated an amount of Rs. 1,35,00,000/- (One Crore Thirty Five Lakhs). On the aforesaid description the FIR bearing No. 311/2023 was lodged by P.S. Tikrapara Raipur. The first bail application of respondent no.2 was rejected on 18/07/2023 looking into the gravity of offence, however later on the wife of accused Deepak i.e. Smt. Anjali Barad executed an agreement of compromise deed on 03/08/2023 stating that on 27/07/2023 a total of Rs.15 lakh were returned by RTGS and 3 cheques of Rs. 40-40 Thousand were given to the complainants and the copy of compromise deed was produced before the court. On 03/08/2023 the third bail application was filed with the aforesaid compromise deed and the relevant documents upon which the learned session court considered the change in circumstance and settlement between the parties and the promise to pay in near future the entire amount and has granted the regular bail in bail application no. 2131/2023 (ΑΝΝEXURE P/2). The general power of attorney executed between the other complainants and present petitioner on dated 22/07/2023. Looking into the act of the accused, the petitioner and the other complainants were forced to make an application for cancellation of bail before the court which has granted the bail. Upon such application the court below has rejected the application for cancellation of bail with a view that since the accused has a liability to return a big amount which need some time, therefore no occasion arise to cancel the earlier granted bail. ANNEXURE P/5.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date no amount as promised during the grant of bail has been paid back to the petitioner and other complainants which is a sheer violation and misuse of the liberty of bail. The aforesaid act shows the intention of the accused to violate the order by the court. The surprising fact is that till date no final report has been filed in pursuance of crime no. 311/2023 by P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur even after more than a year has been passed after the registration of crime. In the reply of respondent No. 2, it has been mentioned that the respondent No. 2 is ready to pay the entire remaining amount in three installments of Rs. 25,00,000/- on each respectively on or before 20.09.2024, 20.10.2024, 20.11.2024, however till date no amount has been paid by the respondent No. 2/accused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that bail must be cancelled because the accused has not complied with the order of court while granting the bail as at that time accused has shown his willingness to return the entire amount of cheating which is Rs. 1,35,00,000/-. The accused has shown before the session court that he is interested in returning the amount, however soon after getting the liberty of bail he has shown through