[2026:RJ-JP:9553] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 67/2025 Sheesh Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Giglana, Mandhan, Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror (Raj.). --Complainant-Applicant Versus 1. Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Rameshwar Singh, R/o Giglana, Tehsil Neemrana, District Kotputli-Behror. ......Accused Respondent 2. State of Rajasthan through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Gothwal 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/applicant seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent No. 1 vide order dated 04.04.2025 in connection with FIR No. 23/2025 registered at Police Station Mandhan District Kotputli-Behror for the offences under Section 109(1) of BNS, 2023 and Section 3 and 5 of Arms Act. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there is one criminal antecedent registered against the accused. It is further submitted that concealing the said fact before the learned Trial Court, the applicant has been enlarged on bail. [2026:RJ-JP:9553] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-67/2025] 3. Heard the submissions tendered by the learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and categorically scanned the observations noted in the bail grant order. 4. Upon doing the needful this Court has observed that the learned Trial Court granted bail to the non-applicant/accused taking note of the fact that he is a senior citizen, aged about 60 years inter alia the overall facts and circumstances of the case at hand has allowed the bail application of the accused-respondent. Moreover, the present bail cancellation was moved in the year 2025 and is on board for final consideration today, after lapse of one year, and in the meantime, no harm is caused by the non- applicant/accused. 5. Considering the overall reasoning noted in the bail order and relying upon the dictum encapsulated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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." The present Bail Cancellation Application deserves to be dismissed. [2026:RJ-JP:9553] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-67/2025] 6. Accordingly, the instant Bail Cancellation Application is dismissed. (SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/3