[2026:RJ-JP:21424] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 104/2025 Abhimanyu Singh S/o Shri Ajeet Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o House No. 5, Shastri Nagar, Christion Ganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Suraj Choudhary @ Siddhu S/o Shri Suresh Choudhary, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Near D.m.c. Dairy, Ramner, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Kumar Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jaiprakash Tiwari, PP Mr. Sanjay Khan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 20/05/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred this Bail Cancellation Application under Section 483 (3) of BNSS in FIR No.614/2024 registered at Police Station Christian Ganj, District Ajmer for the offences under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 352, 310(2), 140(3), 62, 326(g) and 351(3) of BNS, 2023. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the respondent No.2 and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order granting bail to private respondent No.2, Suraj Choudhary, is perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law. He contended that the act committed by respondent No.2 is not only [2026:RJ-JP:21424] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-104/2025] highly dangerous and unethical, but also reflects premeditated and criminal intent. He further argued that merely on the ground of parity that earlier bail application of the co-accused was allowed, the learned trial court has granted bail to the respondent. However, the case of respondent No.2 is clearly distinguishable from that of the co-accused. Hence bail granted by the trial court is required to be cancelled with necessary directions to surrender. 4. Learned counsel for the private respondent No.2 has vehemently submitted that the trial court has rightly allowed the bail application considering the period of custody as well as the fact that the charge-sheet has already been filed and no recovery remains to be made from him. Learned counsel further argued that the scope of cancellation of bail is very limited and that cancellation can only be allowed when the accused has misused the bail conditions or when there is illegality or perversity in the order granting bail, which is not the case in the present matter. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that once liberty has been granted by a competent court after considering the requisite facts and circumstances, ordinarily, cancellation of bail is justified only where the accused misuses the liberty granted, tampers with the evidence, attempts to influence the witnesses, violates the conditions of bail, or where the order granting bail suffers from manifest illegality, arbitrariness, or perversity. 6. In the present case, except for raising the contention that the order granting bail is perverse, no material has been placed on record to show that accused-respondent No.2 has misused the concession of bail, violated any condition of bail, or that any supervening circumstance has arisen after the grant of bail. [2026:RJ-JP:21424] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-104/2025] Further, this Court does not find that the order granting bail suffers from any such patent illegality or perversity warranting cancellation of bail. Accordingly, no case for cancellation of bail is made out. 7. The application for cancellation of bail is hereby dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J bmg/1