Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Bhanwar Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:19534) on 24 April, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:19534]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 28/2025
Bhanwar Singh S/o Shri Ummaid Singh, Aged About 69 Years,
Power Of Attorney Holder Of Niroj Kanwar D/o Shri B.s. Rathore,
R/o 99, Krishna Nagar, Shekhawat Marg, Vaishali Nagar,
Jaipur,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Shrikant Pareek S/o Shri Hari Ram Pareek, Resident Of E-
119 Durga Park Ambadi Jaipur
3. Rajat Pareek S/o Shri Shambhoo Prasad Pareek, Resident
Of E-119 Durga Park Ambadi Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shambhoo Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hathi Singh Jodha, PP
Mr. Pritam Solanki with
Mr. K.L. Vishnoi, for respondents
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA
Order
24/04/2026
1. The present bail cancellation application has been filed under
Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., 1973, by the complainant/applicant
seeking cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent in
connection with FIR No.193/2022 registered at Police Station
Udaimandir, District Jodhpur City East for the offence under
Sections 420, 406, 419, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of IPC, 1860.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order
impugned by which the bail application of the accused respondent
was allowed and anticipatory bail was granted. He further submits
that the Investigation Officer in the matter has failed to conduct
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:29:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19534] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-28/2025]
the investigation properly and has also not sent the disputed
signatures to be examined in FSL, therefore, the bail order is
contrary to well establish provisions of law; he therefore prays
that the present bail cancellation application may kindly be
allowed and consequently, the bail granted to the accused-
respondent may kindly be cancelled.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the bail order
and submits that there was no concealment or fraud played by the
accused before the learned Trial Court, the bail was granted in
presence of all the parties. He further submits that the said bail
was not granted in violation of any statutory provisions and that
the accused have not misused the bail so granted by the learned
Trial Court. He further submits that in the present case, the Trial
has proceeded substantially, and after submitting challan, charges
have been framed against the accused. He also submits that the
present bail cancellation application does not have any merit, and
therefore, prays for dismissal of the same.
4. Heard submissions made at bar, and perused the material
available on record.
5. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that
the learned Trial Court has considered duly considered all the
relevant facts and circumstances of the case as well as the
relevant statutory provisions, and more importantly, it does not
appear that the bail has been granted in ignorance of any
statutory provisions restricting the powers of the Court to grant
bail or that the bail was procured by misrepresentation or fraud
upon the Court.
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:29:43 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:19534] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-28/2025]
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
as well as the findings recorded in the bail orders, and relying
upon the dictum encapsulated in the judgment passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Himanshu Sharma Vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh1, 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.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
7. Since the grounds on which the cancellation of bail is sought
in the present matter do not fall within the four principles
encapsulated above.
8. The present Bail Cancellation Application deserves to be
dismissed, and is accordingly dismissed.
(MANEESH SHARMA),J
58-Ishan/-
1 Criminal Appeal SLP (Crl.) No(s).2032/2024
(Uploaded on 25/04/2026 at 10:13:36 AM)
(Downloaded on 28/04/2026 at 09:29:43 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
