respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said interpretation by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Counsel appeared for the second respondent before the learned Judicial Magistrate is not correct. The order has to be read in its entirety. In fact, the order was pronounced allowing the petition filed for cancellation of bail granted in Crl.M.P.No.7241 of 2019. In view of the submission made by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent was prepared to produce the original title deed to show his bonafide , this Court directed the learned Judicial Magistrate, if fresh bail petition is filed before him, he was directed to consider the submission of deposit of original title deed and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. Only after pronouncing this order, it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the second respondent that the second respondent was ready and willing to surrender before the concerned Court. In the said circumstances, this Court directed him to surrender on or before 06.12.2020, giving liberty to file a fresh petition. On filing of such petition, the Court concerned was directed to consider on the same day on merits and in accordance with law. There is no specific mention about waiving or withdrawing the earlier direction to the Court to consider the submission of deposit of original title deed, while considering the fresh bail petition. That condition stands. That was not altered or cancelled/withdrawn. Therefore, both the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned Counsel for the second respondent were not correct in making a wrong interpretation that, that condition was waived by this Court.
