[2026:RJ-JP:10818] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 42/2025 Samina W/o Ahamad, R/o Jodhu Ka Bass, Chamroda, Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal Tijara. ----Petitioner/Complainant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP …..Respondent 2. Mustak S/o Harun, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jodhu Ka Bas Chamroda, Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara, Raj. ----Accused/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, PP Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathore for Mr. Harendra Singh Sinsinwar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Order 16/03/2026 1. The present bail cancellation application has been preferred under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, arising out of FIR No. 415/2024, registered at Police Station Kishangarh Bas, District Khairthal-Tijara for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 125, 352, 74, 189(2), and 61(2)(a) of the BNS, challenging the order dated 03.03.2025, whereby the trial Court allowed the bail application for offences under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 126(2), 117(2), 110, and 90 of the BNS. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner has relied upon Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 14868/2024 titled Arshad & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that [2026:RJ-JP:10818] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-42/2025] while granting bail to the co-accused, the Court was conscious of the fact that the role of the present accused/respondent, Mustak, was distinguished on facts. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, while granting bail vide order dated 03.03.2025, ignored this vital fact, equated the role of the accused/respondent with that of the co-accused, and subsequently granted bail. Therefore, it is prayed that the bail be cancelled. 3. Learned counsel for the accused/respondent has submitted that bail was granted on 03.03.2025 and approximately a year has passed. It is submitted that the accused/respondent is aged about 32 years and is the sole bread earner of the family. It is further submitted that the matter involves cross-FIRs, injuries were sustained by both sides and the co-accused have already been granted bail. It is submitted that regarding the accused/respondent, three different versions have been presented by the complainant/petitioner: that he fired a gunshot; that he struck a blow with an iron rod; and that he caused an injury to the hands of the complainant/petitioner. It is submitted that these varying versions regarding the accused/respondent are highly improbable. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances recorded above, the fact that the accused/respondent remained in custody for a period of four and a half months, and upon an overall consideration of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail cancellation application at this stage. [2026:RJ-JP:10818] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-42/2025] 5. The Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application is accordingly, dismissed. 6. However, it is made clear that the accused/respondent shall restrain himself from disturbing the peaceful life of the complainant/petitioner and shall not make any attempt to establish contact with or cause any threat to her. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /3