Bail can be revoked if the accused fail to comply with the conditions of the compromise that justified its grant.

ORDER :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The present bail cancellation application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by complainant-Smt. Nishu Gupta, with the following prayers :

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that bail granted by this Hon’ble Court by its order dated 01.10.2021 and subsequent clarification order dated 27.10.2021 in criminal misc. bail application no.13927/2021 may kindly be cancelled and they may kindly be ordered to be sent behind the bars.

Any other order or direction which deem fit, just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the complainant-petitioner.”

2. Respondent no.1- Jitendra Ahuja & respondent no.2- Rinkal Ahuja have been arrested in connection with FIR No.355/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur for the offence under Sections 406, 420 & 120-B IPC.

2.1. Thereafter, they have preferred a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C before this Court and the same was allowed vide order dated 01.10.2021, with the further clarification/rectification therein vide order dated 27.10.2021; the relevant portions of the said orders are reproduced as hereunder :

Order dated 01.10.2021:

“Learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the complainant jointly submit that the parties have entered into a compromise and three cheques have been handed over.

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the fact that conclusion of the proceedings is likely to take some time and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to grant bail to the accused petitioners under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Accordingly, this bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioners (1) Jitendra Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja & (2) Rinkal Ahuja S/o Rajkumar Ahuja shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No. 355/2021 of Police Station Kotwali Bharatpur, District Bharatpur..........

In case, the cheques are not encashed, the complainant shall be free to move bail cancellation application.”

Clarification/Rectification Order dated 27.10.2021:

“Inadvertently, in the order dated 01.10.2021 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.13927/2021 at page-2 the words “three cheques” have been mentioned, it be read as “39 cheques”.

3. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submitted that the bail was granted by this Court on basis of the compromise dated 30.09.2021, and as per the same, the accused-respondents handed over 39 cheques to the complainant, but out of said cheques, total 5 cheques were dishonoured.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the accused-respondents, as per their own conduct, have shown that they are not ready and willing to follow and adhere to the terms of the compromise as well as the condition for grant of the bail by this Court. It was also submitted that the accused-respondents repeated the same offence, while misusing the liberty of bail granted to them by this Court, and therefore, the bail granted to them deserves to be cancelled, while sending them behind the bars.

3.2. It was further submitted that one of the accused-Rajesh Ahuja, in the same FIR in question, got anticipatory bail on the basis of the same ground i.e. compromise, as above-mentioned. In the said case, the complainant filed a bail cancellation application and the same was allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Nishu Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 51/2023, decided on 24.07.2023)

3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satnarayan Gupta Vs. Sangeeta Nowal & Ors., (S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos.6537-6539/2021, decided on 16.12.2022)

4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the accused-respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf o