Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Satveer vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 February, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP(CRL.) No.20993/2025)
SATVEER APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN RESPONDENT(S)
with
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) No.21003/2025)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP (Crl.) No.20407/2025)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(@ SLP(Crl) No. 20453/2025)
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and the learned counsel appearing
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
for the respondent-State.
SWETA BALODI
Date: 2026.02.19
17:29:09 IST
3. The appellants have been arrayed as accused in
Reason:
1
connection with FIR No.638/2022, registered at
Police Station – Nadbai, District – Bharatpur,
Rajasthan, for the offences punishable under
Sections 323, 341, 324, 325 and 504, read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, the ‘IPC’).
4. On 30.08.2023, the appellants were granted bail
by the Investigating Officer (for short, ‘I.O.’)
as all the offences were bailable in nature.
Subsequently, on the basis of the nature of
injury suffered by one of the injured persons,
offence under Section 308 of the IPC was added
by the I.O. Thereafter, an application under
Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.’) was
filed by the State before the Trial Court
seeking cancellation of the bail granted to the
appellants, which came to be allowed and their
bail was cancelled. The same has been confirmed
by the High Court vide the impugned order.
Aggrieved, the appellants are before us.
5. Upon hearing the learned counsel appearing for
the parties, while we do not find any error in
the reasoning adopted by the High Court in
2
confirming the order of the Trial Court, the
question for consideration is as to whether the
custodial interrogation of the appellants is
required or not.
6. Admittedly, the offence that has been
subsequently added is the one punishable under
Section 308 of the IPC which has been done
pursuant to the medical report, and the maximum
punishment that can be awarded for the same is
imprisonment of seven years. The occurrence is
of the year 2022 and it is a case where an FIR
has been registered at the instance of the
appellants’ side as well, pertaining to the very
same occurrence. Suffice it is to state that, on
a conspectus of the above, custodial
interrogation of the appellants is certainly not
required.
7. In such view of the matter, the Trial Court is
directed to make sure that the appellants
execute requisite bail bonds for the purpose of
ensuring their cooperation with further
proceedings.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order(s) and the or-
der(s) of the Trial Court cancelling bail stand
3
set aside, and the appeals are allowed with the
aforesaid direction.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………………J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………………………J.
[AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH]
NEW DELHI;
18th FEBRUARY, 2026
4
ITEM NO.4 + 5 + 6 COURT NO.5 SECTION II-D
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No(s). 20993/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 21-11-2025 in SBCRMP No. 4168/2024 passed
by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at
Jaipur]
SATVEER Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)
IA No. 8833/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
THE SPARE COPIES, IA No. 333032/2025 – EXEMPTION
FROM FILING O.T.
WITH
ITEM 5
SLP (Crl.) No.21003/2025 (II-D)
IA No. 8844/2026 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
THE SPARE COPIES
ITEM 6
SLP (Crl.) No.20407/2025 (II-D)
SLP (Crl.) No.20453/2025 (II-D)
Date : 18-02-2026 These matters were called on
for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Adv.
Ms. Shilpa Singh, AOR
Mr. Archit Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Sansriti Pathak, A.A.G.
Ms. Shagufa Khan, Adv.
5
Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, AOR
Mr. Namit Saxena, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made
the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of
the signed order.
Pending application(s), if any, shall
stand disposed of.
(SWETA BALODI) (POONAM VAID)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file)
6
