[2026:RJ-JP:9555] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 142/2025 Victim ----Applicant Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Gajraj Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gundpur, Police Station Udyog Nagar, District Alwar. 2. State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP with Mr. Vinod Sharma Mr. Sapan Soni Mr. Gurvindra Singh 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/applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 1 vide order dated 19.09.2025 in connection with FIR No. 261/2025 registered at Police Station Udyog Nagar(MIA), Alwar for the offences under Section 69, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order impugned by which the bail application has been granted vide order dated 19.09.2025 qua the anticipatory bail is bad in law. [2026:RJ-JP:9555] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-142/2025] 3. Heard the submissions made by the respective sides, and perused the material available on record. Upon doing the needful it is noted: 3.1 That the victim was an adult lady who was married. 3.2 That the victim was in close proximity with the accused for the period of over 10 years. 3.3. That at the time of consideration of the matter for bail, the learned Trial Court has duly considered the fact that the victim was impregnated. 4. 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." 5. The present Bail Cancellation Application deserve to be dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/5