[2025:RJ-JP:15020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.107/2024 Ramotar Sharma S/o Shri Kishan Lal Sharma, R/o Plot No.294, Vasant Vihar B Sumel Road, Purani Chungi, Kanota, Jaipur City East. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP 2. Shivram Meena S/o Shri Puniram Meena, R/o Bahara Ki Dhani, Village Rajwas, Tehsil Lawan, District Dausa. 3. Krishan Kumar Meena S/o Mangalram Meena, R/o Bahara Ki Dhani, Village Rajwas, Tehsil Lawan, District Dausa. 4. Sanwalram Meena S/o Laxminarayan, R/o Singhpura, Tehsil Rahuwas, District Dausa. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Goutam, Adv. For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Mr. Sudesh Saini, PP with Mr. Shubham Sain, AAAG Mr. Vishwas Sharma, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 03/04/2025 1. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the accused-respondent Nos. 2 to 4 have wrongly been enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024. It is alleged against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, that they with deceitful intend procured Rs.2,10,000/- from the complainant by executing an agreement dated 09.12.2021. The respondents have not paid the amount and threatened the complainant, also the respondents are not co-operating with the investigation, therefore, the bail granted to the respondents may be cancelled. [2025:RJ-JP:15020] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-107/2024] 2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted the factual report, the same is taken on record. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 4 contended that the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent Nos.2 to 4 are purely of civil in nature. The learned Court below vide order dated 17.05.2024 has granted anticipatory bail to the respondents and the respondents have not breached any of the conditions mentioned in the said bail order, the respondents have also appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer, therefore, the application for canceling the bail of the respondents may be dismissed. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. The factual report shows that the respondents have appeared before the concerned Investigating Officer. Initially the FIR was lodged for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 504 of IPC, however the police after investigation did not find commission of offence under Sections 467 and 468 of IPC. Therefore, considering the above facts, I do not find any ground to cancel the bail granted to the respondent Nos.2 to 4. 6. Accordingly, the instant application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-17