1 cri.appln 3440-2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3440 OF 2010 Shri Bharat N. Doshi ...Applicant vs. Haresh Brajalal Shah & Bakul Shah & Anr. ...Respondents Shri Ramdas Hake i/b. Mr.S.P. Kadam for the Applicant. Mr.K.R. Iyengar for Respondent No.1. Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2 The original complainant in MECR No.2/2010 registered at Agripada Police Station has filed this application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent no.1 who is accused no.1 in this case. It appears that in the year 2007, at the request of accused no.1/ respondent, complainant had deposited 2 cri.appln 3440-2010 certain amount in the Bank of India, Fort Branch, so that the accused could open Letter of Credit Account and make use of the same. Later on, it was revealed that the amount was withdrawn by the accused and he had also not opened Letter of Credit. The said transaction had taken place in the year 2007. On 8th December, 2009, the complainant filed private complaint before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate who directed the police to investigate the case under Section 156(3). During the investigation, the accused was arrested. The learned trial court noted that no incriminating document could be recovered from or at the instance of accused, no amount was seized from him, he was in custody for 20 days and no purpose would be served keeping him in the jail and that there is no possibility of his fleeing from justice. The bail was granted on 8th March, 2010 and the accused was released on bail. More than four months after that, this application was made for cancellation of bail. Firstly, there is no explanation as to why there was 3 cri.appln 3440-2010 a delay of about two years in lodging a complaint and secondly, there is no satisfactory explanation why the complainant took more than four months to move this Court for cancellation of bail. Even though the offence might have been committed, it was result of some civil transaction between the parties. I, therefore, do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order granting bail. 3 Application stands rejected. (J.H. BHATIA, J.)