Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Praveen Gehlot vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:16399]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 18/2025
Praveen Gehlot S/o Shri Shankar Singh Gehlot, Aged About 45
Years, R/o Ambala Bera, Phool Bagh, Mandore, Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Karan Parihar S/o Shri Jitendra Parihar, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ambala Bera, Phoolbagh, Mandore, Jodhpur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Javed Gauri
Mr. Tousf Gauri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
Mr. Balveer Singh Rathore
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 18/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 18/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1. By way of filing the instant bail cancellation application under
Section 439(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioner most respectfully seeks
cancellation of the bail granted to the non-petitioner No.2 vide
order dated 19.10.2024 passed by this Court in SBCRLMB
(Second) No.10559/2024 in connection with FIR No. 130/2024
registered at Police Station Mandore, District Jodhpur, for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 147, 148, 149, 307,
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (2 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
2. The genesis of the present proceedings emanates from FIR
No. 130/2024 registered on 15.05.2024 at Police Station Mandore,
wherein the petitioner alleged that the accused persons, namely
Karan Parihar along with Ajay, Sanjay @ Jitendra, Mohit @ Pramod
Sharma and Dilip, in furtherance of their common intention,
launched a violent and premeditated assault upon the petitioner
and his family members using sharp-edged weapons, thereby
inflicting grievous injuries and endangering their lives. Pursuant to
the said FIR, investigation was undertaken and the accused
persons came to be arrested and charge-sheeted for serious
offences, including one under Section 307 IPC.
2.1. Notwithstanding the gravity of the allegations, the non-
petitioner-accused Karan Parihar was enlarged on bail vide order
dated 19.10.2024. The petitioner asserts that such grant of bail
was premature and failed to adequately consider the antecedents
and violent proclivities of the accused, as well as the palpable
threat posed to the petitioner and his family.
2.2. Subsequent thereto, on 07.11.2024, the petitioner
approached the SHO, Police Station Mandore, and thereafter the
Police Commissioner, bringing to their notice the continuous
threats and intimidation extended by the accused persons,
particularly in the backdrop of his daughter’s impending marriage
scheduled on 22.11.2024. The petitioner apprehended disruption
of peace and grave danger to life and property, necessitating
preventive intervention by the authorities. However, the
apprehensions of the petitioner tragically materialized when,
within a short span of approximately two months of being granted
bail, the non-petitioner-accused, in concert with his associates,
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (3 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
once again perpetrated a brutal assault upon the petitioner on
11.12.2024, using lathis and sharp-edged weapons, thereby
causing grievous injuries and further aggravating the threat to his
life. In respect of the said incident, a subsequent FIR was
registered on 12.12.2024, culminating in filing of charge-sheet on
29.12.2024, which prima facie corroborates the recurring pattern
of violent conduct on the part of the accused.
2.3. Despite repeated complaints and recourse to lawful
remedies, the petitioner continues to remain under constant fear
of violence, intimidation and harassment at the hands of the
accused persons. The cumulative circumstances, including the
gravity of offences, repetition of criminal acts after grant of bail,
and the imminent likelihood of threat to witnesses and the
complainant, have compelled the petitioner to seek cancellation of
bail in order to safeguard his life and ensure the sanctity of the
trial process. Hence the instant application for cancellation of bail.
3.. I have heard the counsel for the parties and minutely gone
through the material as made available to this Court.
4. Upon a thoughtful and meticulous consideration of the
factual matrix emerging from the record, this Court finds that the
present case is not a mere instance of alleged misuse of liberty,
but rather reflects a continuing pattern of conduct on the part of
the non-petitioner-accused which strikes at the very root of fair
administration of criminal justice.
4.1. At the outset, it is to be noted that the power of cancellation
of bail under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. is not to be exercised in a
routine or mechanical manner; however, where the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail reveals supervening circumstances or
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (4 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
demonstrates that the liberty granted has been abused to the
detriment of a fair trial, the Court would be failing in its duty if it
does not intervene. As expounded by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Neeru Yadav vs. State of U.P., AIR 2015 SC 3703,
the grant of bail cannot be sustained where relevant factors such
as criminal antecedents, gravity of offence, and likelihood of
intimidation of witnesses are ignored or inadequately considered .
4.2. In the present case, the allegations are of a grave and
heinous nature, involving offences under Sections 307, 147, 148,
149 IPC, among others, which inherently carry serious societal
repercussions. The material placed on record prima facie indicates
that the accused, after being enlarged on bail, has not only failed
to adhere to the discipline expected of a person enjoying
conditional liberty, but has, in fact, emboldened himself to repeat
acts of violence against the petitioner. The subsequent incident
dated 11.12.2024, leading to registration of another FIR being FIR
No.0297/2024 registered at Police Station Mandore and filing of
charge-sheet, constitutes a glaring and compelling supervening
circumstance, which cannot be lightly brushed aside.
4.3. The chronology of events assumes critical significance.
Despite specific complaints made by the petitioner highlighting
continuous threats and apprehension to life, particularly in the
backdrop of a family event, the accused is alleged to have
perpetrated yet another violent assault within a short span of
being released on bail. Such conduct unmistakably demonstrates a
propensity to re-offend and a conscious disregard for the process
of law. The apprehension of threat to the complainant and
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (5 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
witnesses is thus not illusory but founded on concrete subsequent
events.
4.4. The jurisprudence governing cancellation of bail, as
reiterated in Neeru Yadav (supra), mandates that the Court
must weigh the likelihood of the accused repeating the offence
and the danger of justice being thwarted. Where the accused
exhibits criminal proclivity and the capacity to intimidate or
influence witnesses, the continuance of bail becomes antithetical
to the interests of justice. The liberty of an individual, though
sacrosanct, cannot be permitted to metamorphose into a license
to subvert legal processes or endanger societal order.
4.5. Further, the principles elucidated in the decision of this Court
in the case of Harshadhipati Vs. State Of Raj. & Ors (SB
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Appln. No.66/2023 decided
on 05.07.2024) reinforce that bail jurisprudence is intrinsically
linked with the conduct of the accused. The Court therein
emphasized that “the entire bail jurisprudence revolves around
the conduct of the accused” and that where the material indicates
intimidation, influence, or repetition of offence, the continuation of
bail would be incongruous with the administration of justice . The
present case stands on a stronger footing, where not merely
apprehension, but actual repetition of violent conduct has been
brought on record.
4.6. The argument that cancellation of bail requires proof of
violation of conditions stands diluted in light of authoritative
pronouncements which recognize that even in absence of technical
breach, if the order granting bail is rendered untenable due to
subsequent events or if the accused’s conduct renders a fair trial
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (6 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
improbable, the Court is fully empowered to rescind such liberty.
The subsequent FIR, corroborated by investigation and charge-
sheet, constitutes a legally cognizable supervening circumstance
warranting interference.
4.7. It is also apposite to observe that the offences alleged are
not private disputes confined to individual grievance, but are
offences having serious impact on public order and societal
equilibrium. Repeated acts of violence, particularly after grant of
bail, create an atmosphere of fear and undermine public
confidence in the rule of law. The Court cannot remain a silent
spectator where liberty is demonstrably misused to perpetuate
lawlessness.
4.8. In the conspectus of the above discussion, this Court is
satisfied that the conduct of the non-petitioner-accused post grant
of bail, the repetition of offence, and the credible apprehension of
threat to the complainant and witnesses, collectively constitute
compelling and overwhelming circumstances necessitating
cancellation of bail. The continuation of bail in such circumstances
would not only prejudice a fair trial but would also amount to
abdication of judicial responsibility.
4.9. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is satisfied that
the conduct of the non-petitioner-accused, particularly the
repetition of violent acts subsequent to the grant of bail, coupled
with the subsisting and credible apprehension of threat to the
petitioner and witnesses, constitutes compelling and supervening
circumstances warranting interference under Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:16399] (7 of 7) [CRLBC-18/2025]
4.10. The liberty granted to the accused has evidently been
misused in a manner detrimental to the fair administration of
justice. The continuance of bail, in such circumstances, would not
only prejudice a fair trial but also embolden unlawful conduct,
thereby undermining the rule of law.
5. Accordingly, the present bail cancellation application
deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated 19.10.2024
passed in SBCRLMB (Second) No.10559/2024 granting bail to the
respondent-accused Karan Parihar is set aside, and the bail so
granted stands cancelled. He is directed to surrender forthwith
before the concerned trial court, failing which the trial court shall
take necessary steps to secure his custody in accordance with law.
(FARJAND ALI),J
31-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:29:46 AM)
(Downloaded on 20/04/2026 at 05:02:42 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)