TULSIRAM S/O LATE SHRI PANNARAM v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
CRLBC/98/2025 · 2025-07-10
Shubha Mehta
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23453 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 23453 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:25438] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 98/2025 Tulsiram S/o Late Shri Pannaram, R/o Sabji Mandi, Bheruji Ka Mohlla, Ramgarh, Police Thana Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Tarun @ Bhatti S/o Puranmal Saini, R/o Sabji Mandi, Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar.
3. Gurudayal @ Gaurav @ Gutiyari S/o Shri Birbal, R/o Khillora, Police Station Ramgarh District Alwar.
4. Vasudev Nayak S/o Shri Yadram Nayak, R/o Nayak Mohalla, Ramgarh District Alwar.
5. Bharat Singh S/o Shri Phoolsingh, R/o Sabji Mandi, Nayak Mohalla, Ramgarh, District Alwar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandesh Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tapesh Agarwal, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 10/07/2025
1. Applicant-complainant has filed instant criminal misc. application under Section 483(3) of BNSS, seeking cancellation of bail granted to accused-non applicants No.2 to 5, vide order dated 24.06.2025 passed in SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.7964/2025 filed under Section 483 of BNSS in connection of FIR No.63/2025 registered at Police Station Ramgarh, District Alwar for offences under Sections 115(2), 333, 3(5), 109(1) of BNS and after investigation for the offences under Sections 115(2), 333, 189(2), 109(1), 3(5), 61(2), 117(2) of BNS.
[2025:RJ-JP:25438] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-98/2025]
2. Counsel for applicant argued that accused-non-applicants have criminal antecedents and the bail granted to them, is required to be cancelled. However, in view of fact that after release of accused-non- applicants on bail vide order dated 24.06.2025, no supervening circumstances occurred nor the case of complainant is that the accused-non-applicants have misused the liberty of bail, counsel for complainant, at this stage, does not want to press this application and seeks permission to withdraw the same with liberty to file afresh, in case accused-non-applicants flout any of the conditions incorporated in the bail order.
3. Permission is granted.
4. Accordingly, the present misc. application is dismissed as withdrawn with the liberty as prayed for.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/1