[2025:RJ-JD:53416]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 32/2025 Manoj Kumar S/o Moolchand, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Suli Dungar Jaisalmer ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through PP

2. Suresh Bhargava S/o Labhu Ram, R/o Suli Dungar, P.S.

kitwali Jaisalmer (Rajasthan).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None Present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

09/12/2025

1. Instant bail cancellation application has been filed by applicant under Section 483(3) of BNSS, seeking cancellation of bail order dated 03.12.2024 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer in Bail Application No. 538/2024 whereby bail application filed by the accused-(respondent No.2 herein) in connection with FIR No. 281/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) of the BNS, 2023, has been allowed.

2. As per office report, notices have been served upon the respondent No.-2-accused, however, no one has put in appearance.

3. No one has appeared on behalf of the applicant.

4. Heard learned Public Prosecutor and considered the application for cancellation of bail on the basis of material available on record.

5. Respondent No.2 was made an accused in FIR No. 281/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Jaisalmer for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) of the BNS, 2023 and after undergoing custody for a period of one month and 22 days, he was granted benefit of bail by the Sessions Judge, Jaisalmer vide order dated 03.12.2024; in the bail application, previous criminal antecedent of applicant for offences under Section 498A, 406 and

323 IPC, was taken into consideration.

6. In the application seeking cancellation of bail, applicant- complainant has not averred any supervening circumstances or the fact that respondent No.2 accused misused the liberty of bail. Bare allegation in ground (F) to threaten the complainant is not supported by any document and the copy of complaint dated 14.10.2024 enclosed with the bail application is antedated to the order of bail dated 03.12.2024.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022) 8 SCC 559] while dealing with the cancellation of bail, in para No.31 and 32, made following observations:-

“31. This Court has reiterated in several instances that bail once granted, should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during trial. Having said that, in case of cancellation of bail, very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing cancellation of bail (which was already granted).

32. A two-judge Bench of this Court in Dolat Ram Vs. State of Haryana [1995 (1) SCC 349] laid down the grounds for cancellation of bail which are:

(i) interference or attempt to interfere with the due course or administration of justice;

(ii) evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice;

(iii) abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner;

(iv) possibility of the accused absconding;

(v) likelihood of/ actual misuse of bail;”

In para No.33, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it is no doubt true that cancellation of bail, cannot be limited to occurrence of supervening circumstances, but the Supreme Court certainly has the inherent powers and discretion to cancel the bail of an accused, even in the absence of supervening circumstances. Such observations have been made in respect of powers and discretion of the Supreme Court and not in connection with the scope of Section 439(2) CrPC (Now Section 483(3) of BNSS). In that view, the prayer of applicant for cancellation of bail, granted by the Coordinate Bench of the High Court is not liable to be accepted by this High Court itself.

8. In view