Neetu Kochar v. Respondent No.2

439 CrPC read with Section Section 482 CrPC is seeking cancellation of ancitipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 on the ground that the bail order was conditional and the respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the conditions of the order. Pursuant to the notice, respondent No.2 appeared in the court and sought adjournments time and again to comply with the terms and conditions of ancitipatory bail order passed in his favour on 19th November, 2007. On hearing dated 3pt May, 2010, respondent No. 2 sought further time to deposit the amount pursuant to the conditional bail order dated 19th November, 2007 and stated to the court that he will deposit~ 10,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner within a week and he shall deposit further amount of~ 17,000/- in the bank account of the petitioner by opt July, 2010. Besides that, respondent No.2 sought further time to deposit remaining ~ 50,000/-. This court conceded the request of respondent No.2 and directed him to first deposit ~ 10,000/- within ten days and ~ 17,000/- by 01st July, 2010 in the bank account of the petitioner. The matter was again taken up on 16th July, 2010 and on that day, respondent No.2 paid only a sum of~ 3,000/- to the petitioner and sought an adjournment 2011:DHC:10147 'J) on the ground that his counsel was not available. Thereafter, respondent No.2 stopped appearing in the court. Notice for appearance was issued twice to the respondent No.2. On both occasions notices were received back unserved with the report that respondent no.2 was not residing at the given address. From the above, it is evident that respondent No.2 has failed to comply with the conditions imposed vide bail order dated 19th November, 2007 passed .._ in his favour. On this count alone, his anticipatory bail is liable to be cancelled. Otherwise also, the respondent No.2, after seeking time from the court to comply with the conditions of anticipatory bail order has stopped appearing in the court. As per the report on notices, he has left the given address without informing the police or the court about his present whereabouts. This clearly shows that respondent No.2 is fleeing from judicial process, therefore also, bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. In view of the above, the anticipatory bail granted to the respondent No.2 vide order dated 19th November, 2007 is cancelled. Petition stands disposed of. Dasti to respondent no.l. MAY 25, 2011 nn (AJIT B~OKE) JUDGE 2011:DHC:10147

JUDGMENT