JUDGMENT

Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.

This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant -Manoj Kumar Bathla with the prayer to quash the impugned order dated 10.3.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Meerut whereby anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 16.3.2022 has been cancelled and further to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant in Case Crime No. 0574 of 2019, Criminal Case No. 23164 of 2021 under Sections 406 , 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station Medical College, District Sambhal.

2. Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by S/Shri Pranav Tiwari and Yagyavalk Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. It has been submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant that the order dated 10.3.2023, by which the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant vide order dated 16.3.2022 has been cancelled, is bad in the eyes of law and as a matter of fact the applicant did not flout any of the conditions imposed by the Court concerned while granting anticipatory bail to the applicant. It is further submitted that while granting anticipatory bail vide aforesaid order dated 16.3.2022 a total of eight conditions were imposed upon the applicant and he complied with all the conditions. It is vehemently submitted that the impugned order dated 10.3.2023, whereby anticipatory bail granted to the applicant has been cancelled, reflects that the Sessions Judge, Meerut has emphasized mainly upon noncompliance of condition no.8 imposed by the said order wherein it was mentioned that the applicant has to file an undertaking to the effect that he will ensure compliance of the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (in short 'the NCLT'). In this case, it is submitted that after passing the order dated 16.3.2022, no further order was passed by the NCLT and hence, there was no occasion for the applicant for non-compliance of any further order passed by the NCLT. It is next submitted that the Sessions Judge, Meerut has impressed upon the orders passed by the NCLT prior to passing of the order dated 16.3.2022 and non-compliance of the said earlier orders has been made a substantial ground for cancelling the anticipatory bail. It is, thus, vehemently submitted that said approach of the Sessions Judge, Meerut was not tenable in law, as no order can be made effective retrospectively. It is also submitted that if some orders were passed by the NCLT in the matter pending before it between the parties to the litigation, it was for the NCLT to take proper action in respect of non-compliance of the same. A criminal court cannot be said to be an executing court for execution of the orders passed by any other forum / authority. It is further submitted that the applicant has not repeated any alike offences, as were levelled against him in the F.I.R. of the present case and, as such, he has not flouted condition no.6 as well imposed upon him vide order dated 16.3.2022, which has also been made a ground for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant by the Court concerned by aforesaid order. It is also submitted that since anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant by the Sessions Court Meerut till the conclusion of trial, it is explicitly clear that the Sessions Court concerned expressed its view in favour of the applicant and found sufficient and reasonable grounds for grant of anticipatory bail to him till the end of trial. Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order dated 10.3.2023 deserves to be set-aside and cancelled and further the applicant be granted anticipatory bail till the end of trial.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the informant as well as the learned AGA have submitted that the order dated 16.3.2022, whereby anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant imposing certain conditions upon him, reflects that a total of eigh