[2026:RJ-JP:24089] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 111/2025 URN: CRLBC / 155U / 2025 Iqbal S/o Yasin, R/o Ward No. 45, Bilal Masjid Ke Paas, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, 333001. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Narendra Singh S/o Jeevraj Singh, R/o Shishya Haal, Bakra Road Near Star Academy, Jhunjunu, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Bhardwaj Mr. Aayush Malik Mr. Abhishek Saini For Respondent(s) For Complainant : : Ms. Manju Dave, PP Mr. Jaswant Singh Rathor HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 01/07/2026 1. The petitioner has preferred the present application for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) R/w Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), arising out of FIR No. 516/2024 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu, for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 406 of the IPC. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor, and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record. 3. It is contended that the order granting bail to respondent No. 2 suffers from serious infirmities and is unsustainable in law. It is [2026:RJ-JP:24089] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-111/2025] further submitted that the learned trial Court committed a grave error in granting bail to respondent No. 2. According to learned counsel, the allegations against respondent No. 2 pertain to non performance of agreement to sale of immovable property causing cheating and criminal breach of trust and despite the respondent having three criminal antecedents, the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the allegations as well as his antecedent record while granting bail. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned order granting bail to respondent No. 2 be set aside and the bail granted to him be cancelled. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the application for cancellation of bail. It is submitted that the petitioner himself failed to perform his obligations under the agreement in question and that no illegality or perversity has been committed by the learned trial Court while granting bail to respondent No. 2. It is further submitted that it is well settled that bail can be cancelled only where the accused has misused the liberty granted to him, violated the conditions of bail, or where the order granting bail suffers from patent illegality, perversity, or any other serious infirmity. Mere disagreement with the reasons assigned by the trial Court cannot constitute a ground for cancellation of bail. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the learned trial Court granted bail after duly considering the facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the offences alleged are triable by the Magistrate. [2026:RJ-JP:24089] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-111/2025] 5. I have considered the rival submissions and carefully perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any supervening circumstance, misuse of the concession of bail by respondent No. 2, violation of any condition of bail, or any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The impugned order reflects due consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances by the learned trial Court. In the absence of any cogent ground justifying cancellation of bail, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order granting bail to respondent No. 2. 6. Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail stands dismissed. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J 6/Arun