[2026:RJ-JP:8085] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 154/2025 Kuldeep Singh S/o Phool Singh, R/o Jakhorpur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.). ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor 2. Rajpal @ Raju S/o Kawar Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jakhorpur, Tehsil Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.). ----Respondents/Accused For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Samarth Sharma, Adv. through VC For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naresh Kumar Gupta, PP Mr. Ashvin Garg, Adv. for respondent No.2 JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 20/02/2026 1. The instant application for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) of BNSS, 2023 has been submitted for cancellation of bail of the accused-respondent No.2, which was granted to him by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025 in FIR No. 378/2024 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) for the offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 329(3), 333, 324(4), 109(1), 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3, 25, 25(6), 5 & 27 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant (for short “complainant”) submits that at the time of the arguments of Bail Application No. 13088/2025 submitted by the accused-respondent [2026:RJ-JP:8085] (2 of 4) [CRLBC-154/2025] No.2 (for short “accused”) a material fact was concede by the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that FIR No. 142/2015 registered at Police Station Kotkasim, District Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.), charge-sheet was submitted against the accused and he is facing trial before the Competent Authority of Law. Counsel submits that an argument was raised by the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused that no criminal case was lying pending against the accused except the present one and considering this aspect of the matter, the benefit of bail was extended to the accused. He further submits that the accused is a history sheeter. Hence, the benefit of bail granted to him is liable to be cancelled. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the complainant and submitted that when the accused submitted the bail application before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Kishangarhbas, District Khairthal-Tijara bearing No. 144/2025 reference of only 10 criminal cases was mentioned in Para 4 of the order dated 26.09.2025. Counsel submits that all those cases were disposed of wherein, either the accused was acquitted or benefit of probation was granted. Counsel submits that there was no reference of FIR No. 142/2015 registered with Police Station Kotkasim, District Alwar for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 189, 224, 332, 333, 353 & 307 of IPC and Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. Hence, there was no reason or occasion for him to make the aforesaid submission that no criminal case is lying pending against the accused. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, there was no …… or concealment on his part. He further submits that considering the [2026:RJ-JP:8085] (3 of 4) [CRLBC-154/2025] aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the fact that the injured has not sustained any injury on any vital part of the body and looking to the period of custody, hence, benefit of bail was granted to the accused. The application was submitted by the complainant for cancellation of bail to the accused is liable to be cancelled. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the order dated 17.10.2025 passed by this Court while allowing the bail application bearing No. 13088/2025, this Court has considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments raised by counsel for the accused that no criminal case is lying pending against the accused. It appears that counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has made the aforesaid submissions on the basis of the list of criminal cases lodged against the accused and reference of the same, i.e., 10 criminal cases was mentioned in Para No.4 of the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.2 Kotkasim, Dist. Khairthal-Tijara (Raj.) Counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant has not disputed the aforesaid fact that in all the aforesaid criminal cases either the accused has been acquitted or benefit of probation has been granted. There is no mention of the FIR No.142/2015 in the order impugned. Hence, on the basis of the aforesaid table of criminal cases as mentioned in Para No.4, the aforesaid submission was …… that there was no concealment on the part of the counsel appearing on behalf of the accused. 6. So far as the other submission that the accused as a history sheeter, this argument was also raised by the counsel appearing [2026:RJ-JP:8085] (4 of 4) [CRLBC-154/2025] on behalf of the complainant as well as the accused at the time of hearing of the bail application submitted by the accused before this Court and considering the aforesaid submission and overall facts and circumstances of this case, the benefit of bail was extended to the accused by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025. 7. No other ground has been raised in the instant application seeking cancellation of bail that the accused has threatened the complainant or the witnesses for tampered with the evidence or any subsequent case of the same nature has been registered against the accused. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Court does not find any case to cancel the bail granted to the accused by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2025. 9. Accordingly, the instant application seeking cancellation of bail of the accused stands rejected. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Mohita/RINCHU /1