[2025:RJ-JP:46940] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 38/2025 Gopal S/o Kajod, R/o Subhpura, Sehaspuriya, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Ishwar Lal S/o Udalal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 3. Omprakash @ Galya S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 4. Kushram S/o Devlal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 5. Santram S/o Khusram, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 6. Deendayal S/o Ishwar Lal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 7. Ramswaroop S/o Foru, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 8. Durgabai W/o Khushram, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 9. Bhulabai W/o Bharama, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 10. Ratni Bai W/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 11. Shanti Bai W/o Ramesh, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 12. Kavita D/o Ramswarop, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Ram Swaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) 13. Durgalal S/o Ramesh, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents [2025:RJ-JP:46940] (2 of 4) [CRLBC-38/2025] For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Ms. Arti Sharma, PP HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 20/11/2025 1. The instant S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 38/2025 is filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS in FIR No.0215/2023 registered at Police Station Hindoli District Bundi for the offence under Sections 143, 341, 323 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the instant Bail Cancellation Application against the order dated 04.01.2025, the same is read as under: "mHk; i{k ds rdksZa dks lquk x;k o dsl Mk;jh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k o izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkarksa dk lq{kerk ls v/;;u dj muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 325] 147] 149 Hkk-n-la esa ekeyk tekurh; izd`fr dk gksuk ekurs gq, vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks tekur eqpydksa ij ikcan djrs gq, tekur ij NksMk x;k gSA rRi'pkr djhc 8 ekg i'pkr fnukad 02-02-2024 dks iqu% esfMdy cksMZ ls djok, x, et:c gsejkt ds esfMdy eqvk;uk dh fjiksVZ esa mldh flj dh pksV esa isjkbZVy gM~Mh dk vfLFkHkax ik, tkus ij esfMdy cksMZ }kjk et:c gsejkt ds flj dh mDr pksV dks xaHkhj izd`fr dh izdV fd, tkus ij rRdkyhu vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 308 Hkk-na-la dk vijk/k tksMk gS] ftl vk/kkj ij ifjoknh i{k ;g izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj iwoZ esa iqfyl }kjk fy, x, vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur eqpydksa dks fujLr djokuk pkgrk gS] fdUrq bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk ;g fouez er gS fd dsoy izdj.k esa xSj&tekurh; vijk/k tksM+s tkus ek= ds vk/kkj ij ;a=or rjhds ls igys [2025:RJ-JP:46940] (3 of 4) [CRLBC-38/2025] ls eatwj'kqnk tekur dks fujLr fd;k tkuk drbZ U;k;laxr ugha gSA U;k;ky; ds bl er dh iqf"V cpko i+{k }kjk izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n`"Vkar Bhairu & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. Vs. State of Raj. 2022 (2) RLW 1495 (Raj.) ls Hkh gksrh gS] ftlesa Hkh ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; csap t;iqj us ;gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ek= izdj.k esa i'pkrorhZ vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk xSj&tekurh; vijk/k tksM+s tkus ds vk/kkj ij ,d ckj eatwj dh tk pqdh tekur dks ;a=or <ax ls fujLr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A gLrxr izdj.k esa dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls ,slk dksbZ rF; izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us iwoZ esa iqfyl }kjk nh xbZ tekur dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k gks ;k tekur dh lqfo/kk dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gksA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd et:c gsejkt ds ?kVuk ds i'pkr gq, izFke ckj ds esfMdy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ esa flj esa dksbZ vfLFkHkax ugha ik;k x;k rFkk mDr pksV izfrosnu fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz] fg.Mksyh ftyk] cwanh }kjk fnukad 01-06-2023 dks rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl Lrj ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd, fcuk] izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa o mDr U;kf;d n`"Vakr dh jks'kuh esa ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr ;g izkFkZuki= Lohdkj dj vfHk;qDrx.k dh iwoZ ls eatwj tekur dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar rF;xr fHkUurk ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k ij gwcgw pLik ugha gksrs gSaA" 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the instant Bail Cancellation Application. 4. It is observed that bail was initially granted by the police authorities, treating the case as involving a bailable offence. After nearly eight months, a Medical Board was constituted, and the X- ray injury was subsequently categorized as grievous. The Court has consciously noted that once bail has been granted, the subsequent addition of a non-bailable offence does not, by itself, vitiate the earlier grant of bail. In the given facts and circumstances, detailed reasons have already been recorded. A [2025:RJ-JP:46940] (4 of 4) [CRLBC-38/2025] bail cancellation application cannot be treated as an appeal, and only exceptional circumstances can justify interference. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the Bail Cancellation Application has been filed at a belated stage and that four adjournments have already been taken, this Court deems it appropriate not to allow the Bail Cancellation Application. 6. Accordingly, the instant Bail Cancellation Application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/222