IN 

THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI              

Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2002  

In the matter of:       Neeru Holdings Pvt.

Ltd.                   12, Deshbandhu Apartments, Kalkaji, New
Delhi                    (through its authorised representative Sh.
Philipose Oommen)       …Petitioner            Vs.       1.Devinder
Kumar Aggarwal s/o late Sh. M.K.Gupta Aggarwal, R/o
………...   2.State (NCT of Delhi)                …Respondents                       
FIR No. 670/97                                   U/s 420/468/471
I.P.C.                                   P.S. Kalkaji     PETITION UNDER
SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C. SEEKING THE CANCELLATION OF
BAIL GRANTED TO ABOVE NAMED ACCUSED/RESPONDENT
NO. 1 VIDE ORDER DATED 12.9.2001 BY THIS HONBLE’
COURT   MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:   1.      The
present petition under section 439(2) of the code of Criminal
Procedure for cancellation of the bail of the
accused/respondent No.1 is being filed by the
petitioner/complainant company through its authorised
representative Sh. Philipose Oomen, who has been duly
authorised by the complainant company in this regard. 2.     
That the Respondent no. 1 has been arrayed as an accused for
an offence u/s 420/468/471 I.P.C. registered vide FIR No.
159/98 Police Station Kalka Ji, New Delhi on the allegations of
having cheated the petitioner/complainant company of a huge
amount. 3.      The respondent No. 1 had moved a petition
under section 439 of the code of criminal Procedure for grant
of bail before this Hon’ble court. The said petition being Crl.
Misc. (Main) No. 2091/99 came up for hearing on 15-9-1999
and this Hon’ble court was pleased to grant interim bail to the
respondent No. 1  for a period of two months to enable him to
make arrangements and pay the entire amount to the
complainant company. A copy of the said order dated 15-9-
1999 is annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-A.
4.      That the aforesaid petition was, thereafter, adjourned to
17-11-1999 for final disposal. On 17-11-1999 this Hon’ble
court was further pleased to extend the interim bail granted to
the respondent No. 1 for a further period of six months since
the respondent No.1 and the petitioner/complainant company
had reached a settlement to the effect that the
accused/respondent No.1 (petitioner in the said petition Crl.
Misc. (Main) No. 2190/99) had agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.
16.50 Lacs to the petitioner/complainant company. Out of the
said amount, a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- had already been paid
to the petitioner/complainant company and it was undertaken
by the accused respondent No.1 that the remaining Rs. 15 lacs
will be paid to the complainant company within a period of two
years from the said date. In the said circumstances, vide the
order dated 17-11-1999, the interim bail granted to the
respondent No. 1 was extended for a period of six months and
the matter was adjourned to 10-5-2000. A copy of the order
dated 17-11-1999 is annexed herewith and is marked as
ANNEXURE-B. 5.      That thereafter, there was a non-
compliance of the order by the accused/ respondent No.1 and
upon prayer of the accused this Hon’ble court pleased to
modify the terms of the earlier order dated 17-11-1999 and
permitted the accused to pay the remaining amount as per the
modified terms. The matter was thereafter adjourned to 2-8-
2000 and the interim bail was extended till the next fixed date.
A copy of the order dated 10-5-2000 is annexed herewith and
is marked as ANNEXURE-C. 6.      That even thereafter, the
accused/respondent No. 1 committed several defaults and
there was non-compliance of the orders passed earlier in
respect of making the payment to the complainant company
and various orders were passed to the effect of permitting the
petitioner to pay the balance amount as per revised schedule.
The copies said orders dated   7.      That the
accused/respondent No. 1 gave to the petitioner company a
Banker’s cheque bearing No. 426971 dated 5-8-2000 issued
by Vikas Co-operative Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad for Rs. 3.0 lacs.
The petitioner/ complainant company presented the said
Banker’s cheque for realization through its Bank, namely,
Punjab National Bank. However, the said Banker’s cheque was
not encashed and even the said Banker’s cheque was not even
returned by the issuing Bank. Upon enquiry, it came to be
known that the said issuing Bank had closed down prior to
the alleged issuance of the said Banker’s cheque. 8.      That
on 12-9-2001, the matter of grant of bail to the respondent No.
1 came up for hearing before this Hon’ble court and the above
noted facts relating to the dishonour of the said Banker’s
cheque were brought to the notice of this Hon’ble court. This
Hon’ble court was pleased to direct further investigation in
this regard. A copy of the said order dated 12-9-2001 is
annexed herewith and is marked as ANNEXURE-D. 9.      That
during the hearing of the matter on 12-9-2001, it was stated
on behalf of the accused/respondent No.1 that the respondent
had already paid a sum of Rs. 12.75 lacs to the
petitioner/complainant company and that the remaining sum
of Rs. 3.75 lacs was being paid by way of a post-dated cheque
dated 21-11-2001 drawn on Bharat Overseas Bank Ltd.,
Delhi. The petitioner who was present in person in the court
also assured and undertook that the said post-dated cheque
would be honoured on the due date. These facts have been
duly recorded in the aforesaid order dated 12-9-2001, while
granting bail to the accused/respondent No.1. 10.    That the
said post-dated cheque dated 21-11-2001 was presented for
encashment and has been dishonoured by the drawee Bank
vide Memo dated 22-11-2001 for the reasons of insufficiency
of funds in the account. 11.    That the accused/respondent
No.1 made the above stated false assurance and undertaking
to the effect that the said post-dated cheque would be
honoured and thus persuaded this Hon’ble court to grant bail
to the accused/ respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 also
false and dishonestly denied the factum of the dishonour of
the above referred Banker’s cheque for Rs. 3.0 lacs while
making submissions before this Hon’ble court knowing it fully
well that the said Banker’s cheque had been a forged cheque
and the alleged issuing bank had closed down much before
the said issuance of the banker’s cheque. 12.    The above
stated facts clearly make out a case, wherein the accused
obtained bail by misleading this Hon’ble by playing blatant
fraud with utmost dishonest intentions. 13.    It is submitted
that the accused/respondent No.1 was granted interim bail
vide orders dated 15-9-1999 and 17-11-1999 subject to the
specific condition that he would make the payment of the afore
mentioned sum of money to the petitioner company. Even the
final order of bail dated 12-9-2001 had been passed on the
said same premise of assurance and undertaking by the
accused/respondent No. 1 that the entire balance amount in
terms of the earlier orders for interim bail would be made to
the petitioner company. 14.    That the accused/ respondent
No.1 has violated and breached the conditions of bail and thus
disentitling himself for the concession of bail. The conduct of
the accused/respondent No. 1 in not only committing serious
criminal offence of cheating and fraud as against the
petitioner/ complainant company of such huge amount of
money and also playing deliberate fraud upon this Hon’ble
court is such which cannot be condoned. The accused
/respondent No.1 has shown scantiest of regards for the
Hon’ble courts and the process of law. 15.    That it shall be
otherwise expedient and in the interest of justice in view of the
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the bail
granted to the accused /respondent No.1 be cancelled. 16.   
That the continuance of the Respondent No. 1 on bail would
lead to grave injustice and would hamper the course of law.
17.    That no similar petition has been filed by the Petitioner
before this Hon’ble Court or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
of India.   In view of the above, it is most respectfully prayed
that this Hon’ble court may be pleased to cancel the bail
granted to the accused/respondent No. 1 vide  order dated 12-
9-2001 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the Crl. Misc. (Main)
NO. 2091/1999 and the accuse /Respondent No.1  be
committed to custody pending the decision of the case.                            
Petitioner              NEW DELHI                THROUGH     
BHUPENDERSHARMA ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES CHAMBER
NO. 126-127                                    PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS                                    NEW DELHI 110001             
IN  THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI               
Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2002                      MEMO OF
PARTIES   In the matter of:     Neeru Holdings Pvt.
Ltd.                   12, Deshbandhu Apartments, Kalkaji, New
Delhi                    (through its authorised representative Sh.
Philipose Oommen)       …Petitioner            Vs.       1.  
Devinder Kumar Aggarwal s/o late Sh. M.K.Gupta Aggarwal,
R/o 6,Awas Colony, Buland shahar,U.P.   2.   State (NCT of
Delhi)                  (Through Standing Counsel(Criminal) Delhi
High Court, New Delhi                             …Respondents
NEW DELHI                THROUGH      5-2-2002   GULATI &
ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES CHAMBER NO. 126-127
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS                                    NEW
DELHI 110001              IN  THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI 
AT NEW DELHI               Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2002   In
the matter of:   Neeru Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                   …
Petitioner          Vs.   Devinder Kumar Aggarwal and another  
…Respondents     To        The Registrar,      Delhi High Court,
New Delhi.   Sir,   Kindly treat the accompanying petition as
an urgent one. The grounds of urgency are:-   Cancellation of
Bail of the Accused/Respondent No.1 has been prayed for.                      
Yours faithfully,                NEW DELHI                THROUGH
5-2-2002   GULATI & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES CHAMBER
NO. 126-127                                    PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS                                    NEW DELHI 110001        IN 
THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI               
Criminal Misc.(Main)       of 2002   In the matter of:     Neeru
Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                   …Petitioner          Vs.  
Devinder Kumar Aggarwal and another   …Respondents                   
I N D E X   SER NO.     PARTICULARS        PAGES     COURT
FEE   1.   Urgency Application          A   2.   Memo of
Parties              B   3.   Petition u/s 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeking
cancellation of bail granted to accused/Respondent No.1 along
with affidavit in support   4.   Annexure A – Copy of order     
dated 15.9.1999 passed by the      Hon’ble High court of Delhi
5.   Annexure B– Copy of order      dated 17.11.1999 passed
by the      Hon’ble High court of Delhi   6.   Annexure C– Copy
of order      dated 10.5.2000 passed by the      Hon’ble High
court of Delhi   7.   Annexure D– Copy of order      dated
12.9.2001 passed by the      Hon’ble High court of Delhi   8.  
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.      For exemption from filing
certified Copies of annexures along with Affidavit in support.  
9.   Vakalatnama        NEW DELHI                THROUGH      5-
2-2002   GULATI & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES CHAMBER NO.
126-127                                    PATIALA HOUSE COURTS
NEW DELHI 110001          IN  THE   HIGH  COURT  OF
DELHI  AT NEW DELHI                 Criminal Misc.          of
2002                         IN             Criminal Misc. Main)       of
2002   In the matter of:   Neeru Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                  
…Petitioner          Vs.   Devinder Kumar Aggarwal and
another   …Respondents     APPLICATION UNDER SECTION
482 CR.P.C.FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING
CERTIFIEDCOPIES OF ANNEXURES.   Most Respectfully
Showeth:   1.      That the Petitioner has filed the
accompanying application u/s 4392) Cr.P.C.  seeking the
cancellation of bail granted to the accused/Respondent No.1
above named  vide order dated 12-9-2001 passed by this
Hon’ble Court. The contents of the same may be read as part
of this application as the same are not being repeated herein
for the sake of brevity.   2.      That along with the application
the Petitioner is filing uncertified copies of annexures. Due to
paucity of time, the Petitioner has not been able to obtain
certified copies of the same. The Petitioner shall apply for
obtaining certified copies of the annexures and undertake to
file the same in court as and when the same are made
available.   It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-   A.      Exempt the
Petitioner from filing certified copies of annexures.   B.     
Pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case.       Petitioner            NEW DELHI                THROUGH
5-2-2002   GULATI & ASSOCIATES ADVOCATES CHAMBER
NO. 126-127                                    PATIALA HOUSE
COURTS                                    NEW DELHI 110001   IN 
THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI  AT NEW DELHI            
Criminal Misc.(Main)        of 2002   In the matter of:   Neeru
Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                   …Petitioner          Vs.  
Devinder Kumar Aggarwal and another   …Respondents  
AFFIDAVIT   Affidavit of Mr. Philipose Oomen, authorised
representative of M/s Neeru Holding Pvt. Ltd., 12,
Deshbandhu Apartments, Kalkaji, New Delhi-
110019                        I, the above named deponent do
hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-      1.   That I am
the authorised representative of the petitioner/complainant
company in the above matter and in that capacity competent
to swear the instant affidavit. 2.   That I am conversant with
the facts and circumstances of the case. 3.   That I have gone
through the contents of the accompanying petition u/s 439(2)
Cr.P.C. the contents thereof are true and correct to my
knowledge. 4.   That the annexures are true copies of the
originals.                                                                     
Deponent Verification      Verified at New Delhi on this ____
day of February, 2002, that the contents of the foregoing
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof
is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.                    
Deponent                     IN  THE   HIGH  COURT  OF   DELHI 
AT NEW DELHI Criminal Misc.No.       of 2002               in     
Criminal Misc.(Main)    of 2002 In the matter of:   Neeru
Holdings Pvt. Ltd.                   …Petitioner        Vs.   Devinder
Kumar Aggarwal and another   …Respondents     AFFIDAVIT
Affidavit of Mr. Philipose Oomen, authorised representative of
M/s Neeru Holding Pvt. Ltd., 12, Deshbandhu Apartments,
Kalkaji, New Delhi-110019                        I, the above named
deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:-     
1.   That I am the authorised representative of the
petitioner/complainant company in the above matter and in
that capacity competent to swear the instant affidavit. 2.  
That I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of the
case. 3.   That I have gone through the contents of the
accompanying petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. for exemption from
filing the certified copies of the annexures the contents thereof
are true and correct to my knowledge as derived from the
records of the case.                                                                              
Deponent Verification      Verified at New Delhi on this ____
day of Febuary,2002 that the contents of the foregoing
affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge, no part thereof
is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.                    
Deponent    

Read more
at: https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Format-to-
cancell-Bail-or-Anticipattory-Bail-9889.asp