Mere violation of bail condition is not sufficient to warrant cancellation of bail; a summary inquiry is necessary to determine the impact of the accused's involvement on the administration of justice or trial court proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. This application is filed by the applicant-original complainant under Section 439(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking cancellation of bail of respondent Nos.2 and 3, who came to be enlarged on bail vide order dated 06.08.2021 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application No. 11190 of 2021.

2. The brief facts, narrated by the original complainant in the present application, are as under:

2.1. The applicant is the original complainant of FIR bearing registration No. I-C.R. No. 11210048210445 of 2021 registered with Umra Police Station, District-Surat for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 409 of the I.P.C. The present respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the original accused Nos.1 and 2.

2.2 The gist of the aforesaid complaint inter alia alleges that the accused herein are the respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the partners of Gravity Associates. The said firm is engaged in construction of residential project, which includes construction of flats scheme situated in Olpad, Ward No. 13, Entry No. 2690 of old T.P. Scheme No. 5 (Athwa-Umra) final plot No. 206 admeasuring 191.68 sq. Mtrs. The said project was named as “Law Chamber-3.” The aforesaid scheme was lodged in the year 2016. The accused claimed to have got sanction the plans for low rise building consisting of four floors and the fifth floor as per the sanction plan was approved by the local authority only to the extent of construction of one flat.

2.3 In spite of the aforesaid facts, the accused persons circulated brochures indicating more than one flat on the fifth floor. The complainant bona fidely entered into an agreement to sell for purchase of two flats from the accused persons for a total consideration of an amount of Rs.1.15 crores.

2.4 It is the case of the complainant that an amount of Rs.91 Lakhs was paid to the accused persons towards the aforesaid sale consideration and had booked flat Nos. 501 and 503 on the fifth floor situated in the aforesaid scheme of “Law Chamber-3.” It is further alleged by the complainant that the accused had also entered into an agreement to sell with the present applicant for flat No. 304, against which, the accused had realized consideration of Rs.9 lakhs. In spite of having realized the consideration amount, no sale deed was executed by the accused persons. Subsequently, it was realized that accused had mortgaged the whole premises of the aforesaid scheme to a finance company named “Shriram City Finance.” It was found that the accused persons had failed to make payment of installment towards such loan, which laid to fixing of notice by the said finance company on the premises. By such notice, the third parties were questioned about creating any rights on the disputed property. The aforesaid fact was disclosed to the complainant only when he came to visit the premises. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the complainant thought it fit to visit the office of local authority to inquire about the sanction plan whereby, he became aware about the fraud being committed by the accused persons insofar as the permission with regard to the construction of flats on fifth floor is concerned, hence, the FIR.

2.5 The opponent Nos.2 and 3 were arrested in respect of the aforesaid FIR. Initially, their application seeking release on regular bail was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. The accused, therefore, approached this Court seeking regular bail. During pendency of the application, the investigation was concluded and charge-sheet came to be filed. Hence, this Court had permitted withdrawal of such application with a liberty to approach the learned Sessions Judge, Surat. The accused persons, once again, approached learned Sessions Judge, in view of the change of the circumstances of filing of charge-sheet and the liberty granted by this Court.

2.6 The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the investigation case papers, rejected such application. Thereafter, the oppone