ORDER

1. This is a petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. at the instance of petitioner/accused for recalling of order dated 14.3.2022 passed in M.Cr.C.No. 1371/2022, which was an application for cancellation of bail at the instance of respondent No. 2/complainant and same was allowed and bail earlier granted to petitioner vide order dated 18.12.2020 in M.Cr.C. No. 50455/2020 was recalled and bail was cancelled.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner/accused that a case was registered against him at the instance of respondent No. 2/complainant for offence under section 307 of IPC vide crime No. 1046/2020 registered at Police Station City Kotwali, District Morena. He preferred bail application and same was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2020 in M.Cr.C.No. 50455/2020. He enjoyed the personal liberty and according to him, he did not commit any offence but complainant lodged complaint on false pretext against him and two complaints after release of petitioner on bail was registered, one was primarily for offence under section 336 read with section 195-A of IPC (Crime No. 1408/2021) and another was for offence under section 336 of IPC (Crime No. 1422/2021). On this pretext, respondent No. 2/complainant filed an application for cancellation of bail under section 439 (2) of Cr.P.C. vide M.Cr.C. No. 1371/2022.

3. In said application for cancellation of bail, registered AD was issued to present petitioner and Govt. counsel was directed to intimate the petitioner about the pending application.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that registered AD so issued by office of this Court never reached to petitioner because endorsement over the envelop and AD indicates that address was incomplete and therefore, petitioner could not be served. Even otherwise, if deemed service clause is applied even then it does not make the case of deemed service because as per Chapter XV Rule 11 of High Court Rules, 2008 deemed service provision is applicable for writ petitions and case of petitioner is governed by section 64 of Cr.P.C. wherein, procedure for service of summons is prescribed.

5. It is further submitted that para 5 of order dated 14.3.2022 in M.Cr.C.No. 1371/2022 indicates that police authorities given intimation of pending application for cancellation of bail to wife of petitioner but he specifically submits that he is a bachelor and not entered into wedlock so far, therefore, no question of service of notice to his wife arises. Even otherwise, section 64 of Cr.P.C. contemplates service of summons to an adult male member of family. Therefore, on this count also, service of summons is bad in law.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred the judgment of apex Court in the case of Vishnu Agarwal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., [(2011) 14 SCC 813] to bring home the legal position that in a case where a person is not served and any order is passed while exercising criminal jurisdiction then bar of section 362 of Cr.P.C. does not come into play to the detriment of that person because according to apex Court section 362 Cr.P.C. cannot be considered in a rigid and overtechnical manner to defeat the ends of justice. Therefore, the order can be recalled on this pretext. He also relied upon decision of apex Court in the matter of Asit Kumar Kar v. State of West Bengal [(2009) 2 SCC 703].

7. Learned counsel for the State narrated the course of events and submits that facts as surfaced in case diary were presented before the Court.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2/complainant opposed the prayer and submits that despite opportunities given the to the petitioner/accused, he did not turn up before this Court for assistance and since he was served by way of deemed service through registered AD, therefore, no case for interference is made out. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

9. Heard.

10. This is a case where, petitioner as accused is appearing before this Court under extraordinary jurisdi