[2025:RJ-JP:7530] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 10/2025 Heeralal S/o Late Gillu, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ramjilal S/o Khutti, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 3. Jamnalal S/o Ramjilal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 4. Ramraj S/o Shriphool, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 5. Mukti W/o Ramjilal, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 6. Dhaudi W/o Jamna Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). 7. Mohani W/o Ramraj, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Kalaguda, Police Station Sapotara, District Karauli (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Niwas Saini Ms. Nirmala Kushwah For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 18/02/2025 Heard. By way of this application under Section 482(3) of BNSS the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court seeking [2025:RJ-JP:7530] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-10/2025] cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent Nos.2 to 7 by order dated 01.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli in Misc. Criminal Case No.96/2024. Before approaching this Court, the petitioner complainant filed an application under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to the accused persons, before learned Sessions Judge, Karauli. However, vide order dated 12.09.2024, the application got dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case in totality, the respondent Nos.2 to 7 were granted benefit of pre-arrest bail by learned Sessions Judge, Karauli and thereafter, the application for cancellation of bail preferred on behalf of the complainant, was also dismissed after considering submissions advanced by complainant’s counsel and the material available on record. Having heard and considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and after going through the order under challenge as well as the FIR, I am of the firm opinion that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity whatsoever so as to call for interference therein. The respondents were rightly granted benefit of pre-arrest bail. Thus, the instant bail cancellation application is dismissed as being devoid of merit. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /96