A. K. SIKRI, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONERS had business dealings with the respondents No. 2 to 4, who are the partners of M/s. Jain Art Jewels (hereinafter referred to as the complainants' ). According to the complainants, while dealing with them, the petitioners committed fraud and cheating. Accordingly, FIR No. 283/05 has been lodged with the Police Station Connaught Place, New Delhi under sections 420/406/467/468/471/120-B IPC. Though it is not necessary to go into the details of the allegations regarding the said fraud and cheating in this petition, suffice it to mention that the petitioners were working as commission agents for the complainants. They were obtaining orders from dubai for stainless steel utensils, which used to be executed by the complainants and the petitioners were getting commission thereon. As per the allegations, after gaining confidence of the complainants in this manner, both the petitioners, who are brothers, represented in January, 2004 that they had got a very huge order for which they needed advance payment from the complainants to be given to M/s. Prima Enterprises, Wazirpur Industrial area, Delh. Various cheques were thus issued in favour of M/s. Prime enterprises for a total amount of Rs. 77 lacs, but no utensils were received from M/s. Prime Enterprises. When the complainants met the petitioners, they informed that since the utensils were not manufactured/finished as per the requirement, the same were rejected and they had asked M/s. Prime enterprises to return the money. From May, 2004 to July, 2004 only Rs. 35,61,500/- were returned and balance amount of Rs. 41,38,500/- still remained. However, afterwards the complainants came to know from M/s. Prime Enterprises that they had never received the payment as aforesaid nor any order from the complainants was received for fabricating utensils nor was the consignment ever rejected. Since cheques were issued in the name of M/s. Prime Enterprises by the complainants the complainants approached their bankers and found out that the petitioner No. 2 had opened an account in the name of M/s. Prime Enterprises, which was introduced by the petitioner No. 1 in Model Town Branch of Federal Bank in the name of proprietorship firm and got the money in question from the complainants. In the FIR dated 18. 5. 2005, the petitioners were arrested on the same date. On 22. 5. 2005, bail was granted to the petitioners when they represented that they would settle the accounts of the complainants and two months' time was given for this purpose. However, thereafter the respondent No. 2 moved application for cancellation of bail before the learned AJS, which was allowed and bail of the petitioners was cancelled and consequently, the petitioners surrendered on 7. 6. 2005. The petitioner No. 1 was granted interim bail subsequently on 28. 8. 2005. On 10. 9. 2005, the petitioner No. 2 was also granted interim bail. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into by the petitioners with the respondents No. 2 to 4 (complainants) agreeing to make payment of Rs. 97. 80 lacs. Out of this, from time to time a sum of Rs. 48. 50 lacs was paid. Since interim bail was granted to the petitioners to settle the matter with the respondents, on 23. 3. 2006 this bail was extended by another six months. However, as during this period no payment was made, on 14. 9. 2006 the learned ASJ declined to extend the time for payment and also declined to extend the interim bail. The petitioners approached this Court and moved Crl. M. C. No. 5987-88/2006 seeking extension of time for payment of instalment money. In these petitions order dated 19. 9. 2006 was passed extending the interim bail till 16. 10. 2006. During the interim protection, present petition was filed challenging the orders of the ASJ and the legal ground taken is that for violation of the terms of the MOU bail cannot be rejected. In support learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of B