[2026:RJ-JP:9554] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 110/2025 Mukesh S/o Shri Chiranji Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Cement Factory, Police Station Mantown, District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan). --Complainant-Applicant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through PP ......Respondent 2. Govind Singh S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Bhandari Beruni, Police Station Balghat, District Karauli, At Present Resident of House No. 35A, Hanuman Vatika, Nangal Jaisa Bohara, Jhotwara, Police Station Kardhani, District Jaipur. ----Accused-Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Bihari Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP with Mr. Vinod Sharma Mr. Sapan Soni Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore for Mr. H.S. Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 06/03/2026 1. Present bail cancellation application is moved under Section 483(3) of BNSS by the complainant/petitioner seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 2 vide order dated 07.07.2025 in connection with FIR No. 204/2025 registered at Police Station Mantown District Sawai Madhopur for the offences under Section 103(1) of BNS and 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant-applicant submits that by firing a gunshot, heinous offence of causing death under [2026:RJ-JP:9554] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-110/2025] Section 302 of IPC has been committed by the accused while he was acting as a security guard. It is further submitted that despite the commission of heinous offence, the accused has been enlarged on bail within a short period of time without analyzing the material available on record. It is also submitted that without considering the interrogation note tendered by the accused and the corroborative evidence, the accused was enlarged on bail by the learned Trial Court. Lastly, it is prayed that the present bail cancellation application should be allowed in light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused-respondent has submitted that at the time of alleged incident the accused was discharging his duties as security guard of a cement factory. It is further submitted that a group of persons/mob entered into the said premises. It is next submitted that in good faith, without any ulterior motive, and in order to safeguard the factory premises, the gunshot was fired by the accused. Moreover, it is submitted that there are as many as 10 criminal antecedents registered against the deceased person. 4. Heard the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the parties. 5. Upon bare perusal of the material available on record and taking note of the fact that in the matter at hand prima facie no malafides can be drawn vis-a-vis the accused-respondent but without commenting upon merits/demerits of the instant case, this Court is of prima facie view that the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned Trial Court for grant of bail is a well- reasoned and speaking order. [2026:RJ-JP:9554] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-110/2025] 6. Considering the overall reasoning awarded in the bail application and relying upon dictum encapsulated in Himanshu Sharma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in Criminal Appeal SLP (Crl.) No(s).2032/2024, the relevant extract of which is reproduced herein below: "12. Law is well settled by a catena of judgments rendered by this Court that the considerations for grant of bail and cancellation thereof are entirely different. Bail granted to an accused can only be cancelled if the Court is satisfied that after being released on bail, (a) the accused has misused the liberty granted to him; (b) flouted the conditions of bail order; (c) that the bail was granted in ignorance of statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant bail; (d) or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud. In the present case, none of these situations existed." 7. Accordingly, the present Bail Cancellation Application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/4