[2026:RJ-JD:11900]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1809/2026 Shiva Ram S/o Hardan Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Radva Kalla Police Station Mandali District Balotra.

----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ramesh Sihag For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

12/03/2026 Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case bail bonds were already accepted by the Investigating Agency while he was released on bail, however, subsequently due to political pressure, non-bailable offences were added in order to put the petitioner behind Bars. It is submitted that thereafter on an application being filed by the State, learned Sessions Judge, proceeded to forfeit the bail-bonds.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.02.2026.

It is submitted that merely because non-bailable offence has been added, cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in Sunil Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.855/2026, decided on 18.02.2026).

This Court has considered the arguments raised and has perused the order dated 04.02.2026.

This Court while deciding Sunil Bhatia & Anr (supra) has held as follows :-

“The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.01.2026, whereby his bail application has been cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that subsequent to the registration of the FIR and furnishing of the bail bonds being filed by the petitioner, non-bailable offence under Section 117(3)

BNS was added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had furnished bail bonds, there was no reason and justification for subsequently cancelling the bail application on the ground that certain additional offence has been added. He further submits that the petitioner had been granted bail under Section 478 BNSS (436 CrPC) and has not misused the liberty so granted. Merely on account of addition of a offence the bail bonds ought not to have been cancelled.

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Bakshi Ram & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 553/2023 decided on 23.05.2023.

Considered the averments as well as the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, it is evident that the petitioner was released on bail in July, 2025 as all the offences at that time were bailable. It is further seen that there is no allegation on record that the petitioner has ever misused his liberty. The law on the point is no more res integra that considerations for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS (Section 439(2) CrPC are completely different, and merely on account of subsequent addition of non-bailable offence under Section 117(3) BNSS, the bail of a person, earlier granted, cannot be cancelled.

Earlier, Section 117(2) BNS was already pressed into service against the petitioner and now only Section

117(3) BNS has been added.

In view thereof, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The investigation in the matter is already complete and therefore, there exists no reason and justification for cancellation the bail earlier granted.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bakshi Ram & Ors. (supra) has held as under :-

“3. It is true that the petitioners were given the benefit of bail on account of the fact that at the relevant point of time the offences were bailable but at the same time, this cannot be lost site that since September 2021 the petitioners are on bail and thereafter, not a single instance has been reporte