[2026:RJ-JP:3948]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 184/2024 Prakash Chand S/o Mukutbihari Lal, R/o New Mandi, Bharatpur, Kotwali Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2. Hotilal S/o Bhagwan Singh, R/o Village Aborrah, Police Station Kumher, Deeg, At Present Of Rundhiya Nagar Police Station Mathura Gate, Bharatpur (Raj.).

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Shreya Khandal Mr. Naveen Joshi on behalf of Mr. Satish Khandal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

16/01/2026

1. By way of this application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 Hotilal S/o Bhagwan Singh, vide order dated 11.11.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Bharatpur in bail application no. 129/2024 (CIS No.629/2024), arising out of FIR No. 931/2024 registered at Police Station Mathuragate, District Bharatpur for offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 307 and

109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (in short ‘BNS’) 2023.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant submits that the trial Court has erred in granting bail to the respondent No.2. Counsel submits that there is allegation against the respondent No.2 of causing injury on the person of the injured, Deendayal. It is submitted that aforesaid injured sustained seven injuries, out of which, injury Nos. 1 and 6 have been opined to be grievous in nature. Counsel submits that the petitioner-complainant is being threatened by the respondent no.2 and co-accused persons to withdraw the case against them or otherwise be ready to face dire consequences. He thus, prays that facility of bail granted to the accused-respondent by effect of order dated 11.11.2024 may be cancelled.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner- complainant. However, he fairly concedes that no material has come on record to show that the accused-respondent has threatened the petitioner-complainant or attempted to influence any witness, nor has he tried to abscond or committed any offence after being released on bail.

4. Heard. Perused the material available on record.

5. The law governing cancellation of bail is no longer res integra. A catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that cancellation of bail stands on a different footing than rejection of bail at the initial stage and can be ordered only on strong and compelling grounds. Bail once granted should not be cancelled unless the order granting bail is found to be arbitrary, illegal, or perverse, or where the accused has misused the liberty by interfering with the course of justice, including by tampering with evidence. It is equally well settled that the power to cancel bail is to be exercised sparingly, with caution, and in rare and appropriate cases.

6. In Nitya Nand Rai versus State of Bihar & Another, reported in 2005 SCC (Cri) 1159, decided on 11th April 2005, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that consideration of an application for grant of bail stands on a different footing than one for cancellation of bail.

7. In the case of State (Delhi Administration) versus Sanjay Gandhi, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 411, it has been held as under:

"Rejection of bail, when bail is applied for is one thing; cancellation of bail already granted is quite another. It is easier to reject a bail application in a non-bailable case than to cancel a bail granted in such a case. Cancellation of bail necessarily involves the review of a decision already made and can by and large be permitted only if, by reason of supervening circumstances, it would be no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom during the trial."

8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the well settled