Sukhchain vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6025) on 3 February, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:6025]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
     S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7193/2025

Sukhchain S/o Shri Pala Ram, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Ward
No 22 Tibbi Police Station Tibbi Hanumangarh Rajasthan (At
Present Lodged In District Jail Hanumangarh)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                   ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kaushal Gautam
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

03/02/2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the first bail

application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 13.10.2020

in S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence (Appeal)

No.11272/2020. Thereafter, the complainant Krishan Kumar

moved a bail cancellation application bearing S.B. Criminal Misc.

Cancellation Application No.25/2021 before this Court. This

Hon'ble Court, vide order dated 08.08.2024, cancelled the bail of

the petitioner. In the said cancellation order dated 08.08.2024,

this Court observed as under:

"3. Learned counsel for the applicant-complainant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.24/2021, whereby application for cancellation of bail preferred by the applicant-Krishan Kumar against one of the similarly situated co-accused namely Sandeep, came to be allowed and his bail was cancelled. The order dated 10.01.2023 reads as under:-

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:52:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6025] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-7193/2025]

"1. By way of the present application, the applicant/complainant has prayed that the bail grantedto the respondent No.2 - Sandeep be cancelled as he has violated the condition of bail by threatening and assaulting the applicant.

2. In support of his contention, Mr. Bansal, learned counsel for the applicant invited Court's attention towards the report of the Station House Officer, Tibbi, District Hanumangarh and pointed out that the accused persons have created ruckus in the Police Station itself and have manhandled the applicant and, therefore, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 - Sandeep be cancelled.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent-accused person submitted that the scuffle occurred in the court premises out of sudden anguish and there was no ill intention on part of the respondent and both the parties were equally responsible for the incident which took place on 25.01.2021.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

5. A perusal of the report dated 25.01.2021 clearly shows that the respondent No.2 - Sandeep, Sukhchain Singh @ Sukha et al were aggressors and responsible for the brawl.

6. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the conduct of the respondent No.2 - Sandeep, dis-

entitles him for grant of bail as he has violated the condition of bail and has even gone to the extent of threatening the present applicant (Krishan Kumar).

7. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. The bail granted to the respondent No.2

- Sandeep vide order dated 21.09.2020 is cancelled and his bail bonds stand forfeited.

8. The Station House Officer concerned is directed to forthwith arrest the respondent No.2 - Sandeep and proceed in accordance with law."

4. Learned counsel representing the accused respondent, is not in a position to refute the same.

5. Thus, the reason assigned for cancellation of bail in the order dated 10.01.2023, is also applicable in the present case because when the scuffle took place in the court premises, similarly situated co-accused-Sandeep and respondent No.2-Sukhchain, both were present. Hence, the instant application for cancellation of bail is allowed in same terms as stated in the order dated 10.01.2023. The bail granted to the respondent No.2- Sukhchain vide order dated 13.10.2020 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.11272/2020 stands cancelled.

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:52:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6025] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-7193/2025]

6. The Station House Officer concerned is directed to forthwith arrest the respondent No.2-Sukhchain and proceed in accordance with law."

2. It is apparent that the bail of the petitioner was cancelled on

the same footing as that of the co-accused Sandeep, based on

similar allegations of violation of bail conditions and threatening

the victim/complainant.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application.

4. This Court finds that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide

order dated 17.12.2024, has subsequently allowed the second bail

application of the co-accused Sandeep in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd

Bail Application No. 13219/2024, which reads as under:-

"1. The present second bail application has been filed by the applicant under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) seeking regular bail in connection with FIR No. 104/2020 registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh for the offences under Sections 458, 395, 397, 323, 342, 147, 148 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4/25 of Arms Act.

2. The first bail application (S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Application No. 8441/2020) preferred by the applicant was allowed by order dated 21.09.2020. However, the same was cancelled by order dated 10.01.2023 passed by this Court in S.B. Cr. Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 24/2021.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's first bail application was allowed by this Court vide order dated 21.09.2020, whereafter pursuant to the order passed in bail cancellation filed by the complainant, his bail application was cancelled on 10.01.2023. While informing that pursuant to such order, the applicant is behind the bars since 08.08.2023, learned counsel prayed that the applicant be enlarged on bail.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor so also the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the bail application by

(Uploaded on 04/02/2026 at 05:52:10 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:6025] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-7193/2025]

contending that the applicant has violated the terms of bail, hence, no indulgence be granted to him.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering that the applicant was enlarged on bail on merit, however, it was only when he had tried to influence the witnesses, his bail application stood cancelled by order dated 10.01.2023, the fact that the applicant has remained incarcerated for about 15 months after cancellation of bail, persuades this Court to enlarge him on bail.

6. Consequently, this second bail application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. (Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) is allowed. The applicant Sandeep S/o Shri Prem Kumar arrested in connection with the FIR No. 104/2020 registered at Police Station Tibbi, District Hanumangarh shall be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.