[2025:RJ-JP:46962] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 75/2025 Opendra Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Jodhraj, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post- Ishwarapura, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Bhairu Shankar S/o Shri Keshri Lal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ramkherali, Police Station Kaithoone, District Kota Rajasthan. 3. Ashish S/o Shri Gordhan, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Charhatdi Mohalla, Sangod, Police Station Sangod, District Kota Rajasthan. 4. Chandra Bhan S/o Shri Ramratan, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Kali Talai, Police Station Gaindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 77/2025 Opendra Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Jodhraj, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Ishwarapura, Tehsil Mangrol, District Baran Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Narayan @ Nitya Narayan S/o Shri Sukhdev, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Village Badwa Police Station Anta, District Baran Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi For Respondent(s) : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP Mr. Sudarshan Kumar Laddha HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 20/11/2025 1. Present bail cancellation applications are moved under Section 483(3) of BNSS by the complainant/applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-non-applicants vide [2025:RJ-JP:46962] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-75/2025] orders dated 08.04.2025 and 23.04.2025 in connection with FIR No. 128/2025 registered at Police Station Hindoli District Bundi for the offences under Section 115(2), 126(2), 3(5), 110, 140(4) of BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is a practicing advocate. It is further submitted that the applicant has sustained injuries of grievous nature and the said fact was not considered by the learned Trial Court while releasing the accused on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the present bail cancellation applications.. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the non-applicants has opposed the instant applications and has submitted that a missing person report was registered on 01.04.2025, which reflects that the sister of the complainant, who is victim in the present matter, was missing from her house. It is further submitted that the victim girl was abducted by one of the clients of the applicant. Furthermore, it is submitted that bails were granted to the accused/non-applicants, who are relatives of the victim girl. It is also submitted that victim in the present matter filed an affidavit stating that she has been rescued at the Toll Plaza and has voluntarily surrendered to her parents and relatives and on account of the same, physical altercation has taken place between the parties. 5. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, considering the fact that victim in the present matter has filed an affidavit stating that non-applicants are her relatives; that no exceptional reasons are made out for [2025:RJ-JP:46962] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-75/2025] cancellation bail and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to allow the present bail cancellation applications. 7. Present bail cancellation applications are dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /230-231