The power of cancellation of bail must be exercised with care and circumspection, and very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail.

S.P. Garg, J.

1. The petitioner-Govind Narain Joshi has preferred petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 15.02.2013 of Learned Addl. Sessions Judge whereby bail granted to him was cancelled.

2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner urged that the impugned order cannot be sustained as there was no material to cancel the bail granted by the learned ACMM vide order dated 27.06.2012. The complainant lodged false complaints to harass him after an inordinate delay of four years. She never lodged any complainant with him regarding quality of the articles supplied to her. He was arrested in FIR No.218/2011 and was granted interim bail at first instance. Subsequently, the bail was confirmed. The complainant with malafide intention lodged another FIR No.278/2011 on similar facts. Jewellery worth Rs.11 crores is still in her possession. Neither did she make the payment of the jewellery purchased for the last more than one year nor did she return it.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the complainant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor supported the order and urged that there are serious allegations against the petitioner whereby he cheated the innocent complainant of crores of rupees. The Investigating Officer in FIR No.278/2011 did not get an opportunity to seek custodial interrogation of the accused to find out as to from where the foreign material filled in gems and stones was procured. At the time of grant of interim bail under Sections 465/467/471 IPC were not incorporated. The petitioner is a habitual offender and is involved in several cases detailed in the application. They further urged that the Investigating Officer had obtained valuation report from government approved valuers and the value of the jewellery sold to the complainant was ascertained Rs.12-13 lakhs. It is further contended that the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable to impugn the order dated 15.02.2013. Reliance has been placed upon by the complainant on Gajanand Aggarwal Vs. State of Orrisa (SC 2006 Cr.L.J. 4618); Brij Nandan Jaiswal Vs. Munna (SC 2009 Crl.L.J. 833), Puran Vs. Ram Bilas (SC 2001 Cr.L.J. 2566); Noor Islam Rana Vs. State (DHC, 2012 (2) JCC 1461), and Nazma Vs. Javed (2013 (1) SCC (Cri) 508). Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Dolat Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana {(1995) 1 SCC 349}; Manjit Prakash and Ors. Vs. Shobha Devi and Anr. {(2009) 13 SCC 785}.

4. I have considered the submissions of the parties and have examined the record. FIR No. 218/2011, was lodged by the complainant Crl. Mrs.Kiran Nadar on 14.09.2011 under Section 420 IPC. It was mentioned therein that she was dealing with the petitioner since 1999 by purchasing precious Stones, Diamonds, Ruby etc. She started purchasing antique jewellery from him. During December, 1999 to October, 2004, she purchased a lot of jewellery. The petitioner used to bring jewellery himself at her house. She and her husband-Shiv Nadar found the jewellery attractive and purchased it. The petitioner assured that the jewellery sold was embedded with original stones and gems of best quality. She further stated that ‘recently’ she came to know that the petitioner used to deal in fake jewellery also. She got necklaces checked from gem testing laboratory and found that there was filling material inside the Stones to enhance clarity. She was sold ‘Composite’ Ruby and not ‘natural’ Ruby which was of very inferior quality and was of no value. She claimed that she was cheated of Rs.1,08,31,225/-.

5. On 13th October, 2011 the petitioner was arrested from Jaipur, Rajasthan. The Trial Court granted three days police custody. On 17.10.2011 after the remand period was over, the petitioner was produced and was admitted to interim bail for a period of one month. The interim bail was extended again till 31.11.2011. On 15.11.2011 FIR No.278/2011 was lodged by the complainant in the same police station on somewhat similar allegations. It is stated that Crl.M.C.n