[2026:RJ-JP:12280] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 129/2024 Zakir Husain S/o Rahaman, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kaimasa, P.S. Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ---Complainant-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent 2. Arsad S/o Mamura, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kaimasa, P.S. Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). 3. Saleem S/o Mamura, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Kaimasa, P.S. Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.). ---Accused-Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 132/2024 Zakir Husain S/o Rahaman, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kaimasa, P.S. Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) ---Complainant-Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ---Respondent 2. Mamura S/o Juhru, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Village Kaimasa, P.S. Govindgarh, District Alwar (Raj.) (Presently Confined In Central Jail, Alwar). ---Accused-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anupam Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Aatish Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 24/03/2026 1. The instant bail cancellation applications have been filed under Section 483(3) of the BNSS in connection with FIR No. 151/2024 registered at Police Station Govindgarh District Alwar for the offence(s) under Sections 143, 323, 341, 354 & 307 of IPC. [2026:RJ-JP:12280] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-129/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present bail cancellation applications have filed on behalf of the complainant against the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the concession of bail has been granted to the accused-respondents. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court erred in granting bail to the three accused persons, namely Arsad, Saleem and Mamura, vide the impugned order passed in August 2024. It is further submitted that nine accused were initially named in the FIR, out of which the charge-sheet has been filed against four. Learned counsel further submits that the primary cause of death was a fatal strike on the head with a sharp weapon and the said role was specifically attributed to the co- accused, namely Mossam, whose regular bail application has consequently been dismissed. However, despite the accused- respondents being part of the assault and having blunt wooden sticks recovered from them, the concessions of bail were wrongly granted to them. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor supported the said contentions and prayed that the instant application should be allowed. 4. Having heard the submissions tendered by learned counsel for the parties, this Court has observed that the parameters of granting the concession of bail and cancelling bail are entirely distinct in nature. It has further been observed that bail once granted ought not to be cancelled in a mechanical manner unless there are substantial changes in the circumstances of the case categorically scanned the observations noted in the bail grant order. [2026:RJ-JP:12280] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-129/2024] 5. Upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court has observed that the learned Trial Court, while enlarging the accused on bail, had duly applied its judicial mind and considering the age, custody period, roles attributed, recovery of the weapons, and the overall facts and circumstances granted bail to the accused-respondents. 6. In light of above and in absence of any material changes in the circumstances after granting bail to the accused-respondents but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to allow the instant bail cancellation applications. 7. Accordingly, the instant bail cancellation applications stand dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J DEEPAK /36-37