` SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 1 BCA No.4 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. 2. Mr. S.C. Dumka, A.G.A. for the State. 3. Mr. Karan Anand, Advocate for respondent no.2. 4. This bail cancellation application has been moved by the learned counsel for the applicant on the ground that while being enlarged on bail in Second Bail Application No.66 of 2021 vide order dated 23.07.2021, an undertaking was given by respondent no.2 to settle the dispute within a period of six months and if the respondent no.2 would not settle the dispute within a period of six months a liberty was given to the aggrieved person to move a bail cancellation application. 5. According to learned counsel for the applicant the respondent no.2 did not settle the dispute within six months by paying an amount under dispute to the applicant, the bail cancellation application has been moved for cancellation of the bail granted to respondent no.2. 6. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that earlier the bail granted to wife of respondent no.2 has been cancelled and against that cancellation the wife of respondent no.2 filed an SLP before the Apex Court, wherein she has given undertaking to make a payment of ₹12,00,000/- to the applicant, but when the condition has not been complied with the SLP No.9553 of 2022 was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 14.12.2023. 7. On the basis of the undertaking given before the Apex Court the applicant want that undertaking to be used 2 against respondent no.2. 8. Since that undertaking has been given by wife of respondent no.2 before the Apex Court, this Court is of the view that it cannot be used against respondent for cancellation of the bail granted to him by this Court. 9. Accordingly bail cancellation application stands rejected. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.11.2025 SK