[2026:RJ-JP:9534] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 1/2026 Devkant Parasar S/o Rajendra Kumar Parasar, R/o Kasba Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Presently Nursing Officer, Community Health Centre, Jurhara, District Deeg. ----Complainant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP …….Respondent 2. Devendra Singh S/o Pyare Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9, Near Kachha Talab, Mori Mohalla, Deeg, The Then Senior Assistant Office Of Chief Medical And Health Officer, Deeg, District Deeg. ----Accused Respondent For Complainant/ Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini For State : Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Addl.G.A. cum P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 25/02/2026 1. The complainant petitioner has filed this bail cancellation application under Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023, with the prayer to cancel the bail granted to the accused- respondent vide order dated 01.10.2024 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10216/2024 in connection with F.I.R. 0154/2024, registered with the Police Station C.P.S. Jaipur, District ACB District, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The learned counsel for the complainant petitioner submitted that the accused-respondent is misusing the liberty of bail granted to him, as he is harassing the complainant petitioner by making frivolous complaint against the complainant petitioner [2026:RJ-JP:9534] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-1/2026] and on such complaint, the Officers of Administrative Department of the complainant petitioner are taking action and initiating inquiry against the complainant petitioner, which amounts to harassment of the complainant and influencing the evidence. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainant petitioner and perused the material made available on record. 4. The allegation against the accused-respondent is that after he being released on bail, made complaint against the complainant petitioner in respect of the alleged irregularities of the complainant petitioner in his office, where he is deputed. On the complaint submitted by the accused-respondent, who is also a Personnel of the Department under which the present complainant petitioner is working, the Chief Medical and Health Officer has ordered for initiating an inquiry into the allegations made against the complainant petitioner. 5. If any complaint against the complainant petitioner is made in regard to any irregularities or misconduct as regards performing the official duties and any inquiry is ordered to be initiated against him by the Officer, then such complaint, in opinion of this Court, cannot be said to be an effort by the accused-respondent of tempering with the evidence or influencing the complainant. 6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Phireram Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.: Criminal Appeal No.3830/2025, decided on 02.09.2025 has carved out the principles or circumstances governing the cancellation of bail. Para 56 of the said judgment is quoted as under:- [2026:RJ-JP:9534] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-1/2026] “56 This Court then summed up the principle or circumstance governing the cancellation of bail as under:- “25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. can be cancelled are enumerated below: (a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other criminal activity; (b) If he interferes with the course of investigation; (c) If he attempts to tamper with the evidence; (d) If he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses; (e) If he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings; (f) If he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth investigation; (g) If he is likely to flee from the country; (h)If he attempts to make himself scarce by going underground and/or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency; (I) If he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety. (j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are considered unconducive to a fair trial. We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature and not exhaustive.” 7. The present case does not fall in any of the principles or circumstances, as carved out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Phireram (supra). 8. In view of the above, this Court finds no ground to cancel the bail granted to the accused-respondent. 9. Accordingly, this bail cancellation application filed by the complainant petitioner is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J ARTI SHARMA /2