JUDGMENT

SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The instant petition under Section 482 read with Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 („Cr.P.C.‟) has been filed on behalf of petitioner seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 3 and 4 by the court of learned Additional Special Judge, Special Court (Electricity), South-West, Dwarka Court, New Delhi vide order dated 26.10.2020 in bail application bearing nos. 715/2020 and 739/2020 in case bearing FIR no.

Signature Not Verified CRL. M.C. 2346/2020 Page 1 of 7 Digitally Signed

485/2019, registered at Police Station Najafgarh, Delhi for offence punishable under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 („IPC‟).

2. Issue notice. Mr. Satish Kumar, learned APP accepts notice on behalf of the State.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case as per the FIR are that respondent no. 3 had initially induced petitioner to become a member of QNET company but petitioner had refused to invest any money. Thereafter, on 15.07.2018, respondent no. 3 had introduced petitioner herein to respondent no. 2 who had induced the petitioner to invest money forgetting membership of QNET company. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 had then obtained his identification cards i.e., PAN card, Aadhaar card and had obtained signatures of petitioner on blank papers. On 15.07.2018, an amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- was transferred into the account of one Saurabh Saluja and one Sunny Arora with Rs. 3,00,000/- each. Upon demanding the money, respondents had threatened the petitioner with dire consequences. Subsequently, on the complaint of petitioner, present FIR dated 25.09.2019 was registered. The learned Trial Court had granted anticipatory bail to respondents nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 26.10.2020.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner states that the respondents had threatened petitioner before they were granted bail and even after they were granted anticipatory bail by learned Trial Court vide order dated 26.10.2020. It is also stated that respondents have intentionally flouted the bail conditions. It is stated that since the respondents have not complied with the anticipatory bail conditions and have threatened the petitioner herein, anticipatory bail granted to Signature Not Verified CRL. M.C. 2346/2020 Page 2 of 7 Digitally Signed respondents be cancelled.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3, on the other hand, submits that the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have joined investigation as per the directions of the IO. It is stated that chargesheet has not been filed even after four years. It is stated that petitioner had willingly taken membership of QNET company and had willingly submitted his identification cards to respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that the membership was free of cost and did not require any sort of consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner had purchased three holiday packages in total and no amount with regard to the first holiday package was transferred or received by respondent nos. 2 and 3. It is also stated that petitioner had willingly transferred the disputed amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- in the account of his seniors at QNET company namely, Saurabh Saluja and Sunny Arora. It is further stated that petitioner had knowledge regarding the return/refund policy of the company. Therefore, it is prayed that present petition be dismissed.

6. I have heard arguments addressed by learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondents and have perused material on record.

7. Since the petitioner seeks cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused, it will be trite to discuss the law regarding cancellation of bail. In this regard, this Court takes note of the decision of Hon‟ble Apex Court in Deepak Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) 8 SCC 559 wherein in was observed as under:

Signature Not Verified CRL. M.C. 2346/2020 Page 3 of 7 Digitally Signed "...30. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled