Maksud vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1598)
2025 Latest Caselaw 4054 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Maksud vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:1598) on 9 January, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:1598]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
       S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 41/2024

Maksud S/o Shree Abdul Gani, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Nahru
Colony, Ward No. 23, Balotra, Presenty Aalniyawas, P.s. Thawla,
Dist. Nagaur,raj.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Jeth Ram S/o Thana Ram, R/o Dhudhara P.s. Luni Dist.
         Jodhpur
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Shiv Singh
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.S.Rathore
                               Mr. Tej Singh Badgujar



            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 20.6.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Balotra

in Cr. Misc. Case No.410/2024 "Jetha Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan",

whereby the respondent accused has been granted bail in

connection with F.I.R. No.25/2024 registered at Police Station

Samdari, District Balotra for the offences under Sections 147, 148,

342, 364, 365, 367, 395, 396, 302, 201/120 B IPC and Sections

43/66 and 66C of Information Technology Act.

Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned

Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondent.

Perused the material available on record.

[2025:RJ-JD:1598] (2 of 2) [CRLBC-41/2024]

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.

In this view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to

interfere with the said order.

Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail

is dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 133-TarunGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)