Advocates:
['SHANTANU SHARMA', '', 'DINESH BARMAN', 'PREM SHANKER SHARMA']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 165/2021

Kamlesh Mali Son Of Kana Ram, Aged About 41 Years, Resident

Of Sherpur, Kotwali- Sawai Madhopur, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor

2.

Ram Kalyan Son Of Kanhaiya, Resident Of Sherpur, P.s.-

Kotwali, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Shantanu Sharma

Mr. Dinesh Barman

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Mangal Singh Saini, PP

Mr. Prem Shanker Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

19/05/2022

1.

This instant application for cancellation of bail has been

preferred on behalf of the complainant seeking cancellation of bail

granted by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated

25.11.2021.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were

five cases against the accused-respondent, out of which in two

cases he had been convicted; this fact had not been brought to

the notice of this Court while entertaining the bail plea. The

accused is misusing the liberty granted in his favour. It is

strenuously urged that there was a grievous injury on the leg

using a sharp-edged weapon, therefore, looking to the nature and

(2 of 3)

[CRLBC-165/2021]

gravity of the offence, the bail ought to have been rejected

instead of being granted.

3.

Learned Public Prosecutor is not able to place on record any

material from which an inference can be drawn that after getting

the bail, accused misused the same and otherwise tried to hamper

the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He submits that charge

sheet has been filed in this matter and the case is pending trial

before the learned Judicial Magistrate.

4.

Mr. Mukesh Sharma, learned counsel for the accused-

respondent vehemently protested the plea for cancellation of bail

and urged that the accused-respondent is a law abiding citizen,

who regularly appears before the trial court either personally or

through his pleader and assured this Court that the liberty granted

in his favour shall not be abused in any manner. All the accused

persons shall be readily available for smooth and fair trial and will

remain present to hear the judgment on merits, be it conviction or

acquittal.

5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

6.

The case is essentially triable by the Court of Magistrate. The

injury is opined to have been inflicted on the leg. The Coordinate

Bench while granting bail to the accused-respondent has taken

into consideration all the legal and factual aspects of the matter. It

is a trite law that the factors which are to be considered at the

time of entertaining a fresh bail application are altogether different

than the factors which are to be considered while entertaining an

application for cancellation of bail, which has already been

granted.

(3 of 3)

[CRLBC-165/2021]

7.

Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagirathsinh

Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1984 SC 372 has

propounded the guiding factors which have been followed by the

Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts in numbers of cases.

After anxious consideration of material available on record, at this

stage, I do not see any reason to interfere or to entertain the

application for cancellation of bail. The instant bail application is

devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

9.

Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail is

dismissed, however, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach

the Court again in the event any circumstances emerge as

enumerated in the leading cases that govern the law relating to

cancellation of bail.

(FARJAND ALI),J

RAJAT KUMAR /1