[2025:RJ-JP:28659] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3918/2025 1. Bhagirath S/o Shri Ami Lal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Bhajnawas, Police Station Tatarpur, District Khairthal Tizara, Rajasthan. 2. Rajendra @ Raju S/o Shri Chote Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Khatoti, Police Station Harsora, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. 3. Mukesh Chand S/o Shri Chote Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khatoti, Police Station Harsora, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. 4. Banwari Lal S/o Shri Ladu Ram, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Samda, Police Station Tatarpur, District Khairthal Tizara, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. The Station House Officer, Police Station Bansoor, District Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Tiwari For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Shekhawat, PP Mr. Rishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 29/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are having no criminal antecedents registered against themselves, and merely on account of a property dispute the present cause of action arose. It is further submitted that initially during the investigation bailable offence were reported and bail bonds were executed. [2025:RJ-JP:28659] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-3918/2025] 2. It is further submitted that thereafter on change of investigation officer, the non-bailable sections were added and warrants under Section 456 of IPC were issued. It is submitted that the same was done merely on the basis of CCTV recording however, subsequently the same was changed. It is further submitted that as on date the petitioners are bailed out, and are ready to cooperate in the investigation. 3. It is submitted that substantial investigation is already conducted. At this juncture, learned counsel has placed reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.595/2024 Narpal & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Satish Mittal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and has submitted that grant of bail and cancellation of bail are two different conditions. Additionally, while placing reliance upon the dictum enunciated in 1986 (4) SCC 481 titled as Raghubir Singh & Others Etc vs State Of Bihar., and has submitted that bail cancellation should be done if investigation is tainted with conditions as violation of submissions of witnesses or evidences or apparent threatening is given or likelihood of fleeing to other country. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the contentions put-forth by learned counsel for the petitioners. Howsoever, he is not able to controvert the said facts and the reliance placed upon the afore-cited judgments. 5. In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances of the matter, upon a perusal of the material available on record and maintaining judicial parity with the afore-relied judgments, [2025:RJ-JP:28659] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-3918/2025] however, without commenting anything on merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to dispose of the present petition. 6. In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that no coercive actions shall be taken against the petitioner, subject to their cooperation in the investigation that is ongoing in furtherance to the FIR bearing no. 82/2024 registered at Police Station Bansur. Withal, the impugned order dated 10.06.2025 whereby the personal bonds were cancelled, is quashed and set aside. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/59