Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rituraj Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1591) on 9 January, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:1591]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 12/2022
Rituraj Kumari W/o Sh. Kailash Singh, D/o Sh. Bhagwan Singh,
Aged About 36 Years, Naya Nagar, Kotadi, Teh. Gudamalani,
Dist. Barmer, At Present R/o 35-C, Mohi Haveli, Shikarwadi,
W.no. 16, Sector No. 14, Goverdhan Vilas, Udaipur, Dist.
Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Kailash Singh S/o Sh. Dilip Singh, Naya Nagar, Kotadi,
Teh. Gudamalani, Dist. Barmer, At Present Resident Of B-
Road, Paota Nagar Haveli, Hanumat Garden, P.s.
Mahamandir, Jodhpur, Dist. Jodhpur City East.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shrawan Singh Rathore, PP
Mr. R.S. Chouhan
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Judgment / Order
09/01/2025
This application for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2)
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the complainant-petitioner against the
order dated 10.1.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge No.1, Udaipur in Cr. Misc. Case No.2271/2021 "Kailash
Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan", whereby the respondent accused
has been granted anticipatory bail in connection with F.I.R.
No.53/2021 registered at Police Station Mahila Thana, Udaipur, for
the offences under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
[2025:RJ-JD:1591] (2 of 3) [CRLBC-12/2022]
Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned
Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent.
Perused the material available on record.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court, time and again in its judicial
pronouncements, has been laying down certain conditions wherein
bail granted to an accused may be cancelled. These conditions
comprise certain acts and inactions of accused such as (i) the
accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity,
(ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to
tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or
indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth
investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another
country, (vi) attempts to make himself scare by going
underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency,
(vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc.
Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is not in a
position to satisfy this Court as to whether the respondent-
accused has flouted any of the above-mentioned conditions in the
instant matter.
Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court
prima facie finds that no illegality whatsoever has been committed
by the competent criminal Court while granting bail to the
accused-respondent.
Otherwise also, the instant bail application is pending since
2022 and thus, the trial must have progressed substantially.
In this view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to
interfere with the said order.
[2025:RJ-JD:1591] (3 of 3) [CRLBC-12/2022]
Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail
is dismissed.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
129-TarunGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
