[2025:RJ-JP:41521] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 173/2023 Suresh S/o Shri Bhupal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Badhira, P/s Nadbai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Rohit @ Ritu S/o Late Shri Gajendra Singh, R/o Village Beeloth, P/s Lakhanpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dilip Singh Kurka For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, AGA Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore for Mr. Harendra Singh HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 13/10/2025 1. Present bail cancellation application has been moved under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. by the complainant/petitioner seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 08.12.2022 in connection with FIR No. 342/2022 registered at Police Station Sewar District Bharatpur for the offences under Section 307, 34 and 341 IPC and as per charge-sheet under Section 302, 307, 323, 341, 120-B, 411 and 473 IPC and Section 3, 25(6) of the Arms Act. 2. Upon perusal of the material available on record, it is noted that present bail cancellation application was filed in the year 2023 against the bail order dated 08.12.2022, which was passed after considering the arguments of the respective sides. It [2025:RJ-JP:41521] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-173/2023] is also noted that, on various occasions matter was listed and adjournments were sought. 3. Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel for the applicant-complainant has submitted that applicant is threatened by the respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that respondent/non-applicant No. 2 is alleged of committing a murder and is in custody qua the same. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the present bail cancellation application. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer of the applicant. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering that three years have been lapsed since passing of the bail order dated 08.12.2022; that applicant admits that non-applicant No. 2 is in custody, which reflects that contention qua threatening is illusionary, as non- applicant No.2 is in custody, therefore, 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 application. 8. Accordingly, the bail cancellation application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J Pooja /1