##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:14185]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1918/2026

1. Om Prakash S/o Jagdish, Aged About 48 Years, R/o R Vpo

32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar. Raj.

2. Pawan Kumar S/o Jagdish Kumar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.raj.

3. Shyam Sundar S/o Jagdish, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.raj.

4. Sandeep S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.raj.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

2. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Budha Ram, R/o 79 Lnp First Police Station Ghumadwali Districtsri Ganganagar Raj.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana Mr. I.S. Rathore Mr. Sourav Shekhar

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP Mr. SR Godara

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

25/03/2026

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, being

aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2026, whereby their bail bonds have been cancelled. It is submitted that in the present case, pursuant to the issuance of notice under Section 35, the bail bonds of the petitioners had already been furnished before the

Investigating Agency.

In the present case, an application was filed by the learned

Public Prosecutor for cancellation of the notice under Sections 35(4), (5) and (6) of the BNSS, and vide order dated 17.01.2026, the same was allowed, on the ground that an offence under

Section 140(4) was found to be made out against the petitioners.

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:50:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14185] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1918/2026]

From the impugned order, it is not clear as to whether the

bail bonds submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice under Section 35 of BNSS. In view of the same, on the previous date, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to clarify whether the bail bonds of the petitioners had been submitted. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon calling for and perusing the case diary, has informed this Court that the case diary contains the bail

bonds submitted by the petitioners.

In light of the same, the effect of the order dated

17.01.2026 is, in fact, the cancellation of the bail bonds of the petitioners, although it ostensibly refers only to the cancellation of the notice, which effectively has resulted in cancellation of the bail

bonds.

This Court, in Bakshi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Cr.

L.R.P. No. 553/2023), has clearly held that merely because a non-bailable offence is subsequently found during investigation, the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail bonds, unless it is shown that the petitioners have misused the liberty granted to them. Relying on the same principle, this Court in Sunil Bhatia vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 855/2026) has also held that, except in exceptional circumstances, bail bonds once

furnished should not be cancelled.

In the present case, when the bail bonds of the petitioners

were accepted, the offence under Section 140(3) of the BNS was already alleged against them. It is stated that subsequently a more aggravated offence under Section 140(4) of the BNS has

(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)

(Downloaded on 04/04/2026 at 01:50:44 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:14185] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1918/2026] been added, and on that basis an application was filed by the

SHO.

This Court has considered the averments and, in light of the

law laid down in Bakshi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) as well as Sunil Bhatia vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), holds that the mere addition of a non-bailable offence cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail bonds. The respondent-State/complainant has failed to make out any case, and there is no finding in the impugned order dated 17.01.2026 that the petitioners misused the liberty granted to them w