Shiva Ram vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:11900) on 12 March, 2026

[2026:RJ-JD:11900]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1809/2026

Shiva Ram S/o Hardan Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Radva
Kalla Police Station Mandali District Balotra.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ramesh Sihag
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pawan Kumar, PP



      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU

Order

12/03/2026

Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case

bail bonds were already accepted by the Investigating Agency

while he was released on bail, however, subsequently due to

political pressure, non-bailable offences were added in order to

put the petitioner behind Bars. It is submitted that thereafter on

an application being filed by the State, learned Sessions Judge,

proceeded to forfeit the bail-bonds.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.02.2026.

It is submitted that merely because non-bailable offence has

been added, cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

passed by this Court in Sunil Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.855/2026,

decided on 18.02.2026).

(Uploaded on 14/03/2026 at 03:52:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11900] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1809/2026]

This Court has considered the arguments raised and has

perused the order dated 04.02.2026.

This Court while deciding Sunil Bhatia & Anr (supra) has

held as follows :-

"The present petition has been filed under Section 528 BNSS by the petitioner aggrieved against the order dated 22.01.2026, whereby his bail application has been cancelled by the learned Sessions Judge, on the ground that subsequent to the registration of the FIR and furnishing of the bail bonds being filed by the petitioner, non-bailable offence under Section 117(3) BNS was added.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the petitioner had furnished bail bonds, there was no reason and justification for subsequently cancelling the bail application on the ground that certain additional offence has been added. He further submits that the petitioner had been granted bail under Section 478 BNSS (436 CrPC) and has not misused the liberty so granted. Merely on account of addition of a offence the bail bonds ought not to have been cancelled. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court in Bakshi Ram & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 553/2023 decided on 23.05.2023.

Considered the averments as well as the impugned order dated 22.01.2026, it is evident that the petitioner was released on bail in July, 2025 as all the offences at that time were bailable. It is further seen that there is no allegation on record that the petitioner has ever

(Uploaded on 14/03/2026 at 03:52:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11900] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1809/2026]

misused his liberty. The law on the point is no more res integra that considerations for cancellation of bail under Section 483(3) BNSS (Section 439(2) CrPC are completely different, and merely on account of subsequent addition of non-bailable offence under Section 117(3) BNSS, the bail of a person, earlier granted, cannot be cancelled.

Earlier, Section 117(2) BNS was already pressed into service against the petitioner and now only Section 117(3) BNS has been added.

In view thereof, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no requirement of custodial interrogation of the petitioners. The investigation in the matter is already complete and therefore, there exists no reason and justification for cancellation the bail earlier granted. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bakshi Ram & Ors. (supra) has held as under :-

"3. It is true that the petitioners were given the benefit of bail on account of the fact that at the relevant point of time the offences were bailable but at the same time, this cannot be lost site that since September 2021 the petitioners are on bail and thereafter, not a single instance has been reported whether by any witness or the victim made a complaint regarding misuse of liberty so granted to them. Even till day, the complainant/victim have not approached this Court for cancellation of order granting bail to the accused.

4. It has been averred that the application for cancellation of bail under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. has been filed by the learned Public Prosecutor at the behest of the State. Now around two years have lapsed after releasing them on bail and the liberty so granted to them was never misused or abused in any manner. Simply on account of addition of a non-bailable offence; the bail granted earlier would not be justifiable to be cancelled. Had it been the case that soon after the death of the first informant Banshi Lal and for addition of Section 304 IPC, any application would have been moved on behalf of the State or

(Uploaded on 14/03/2026 at 03:52:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11900] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1809/2026]

complainant in the year 2021 itself then the circumstances or the consideration would be different. After two years of the passing the order granting bail and remaining the accused on bail, if an order for cancellation of the same is passed; it may re-ignite the rift and acrimony between the parties. There would be every possibility of fume and fret between them with a new issue. There is a clear allegation that when the first informant Banshi Lal made an intervention in scuffle between the petitioner party and the son of the deceased, he received an injury on his hand. It may be a question before the trial Court as to whether the death of the deceased was a direct consequence of the injury allegedly inflicted by the petitioners or not and whether the accused know that the injury allegedly inflicted may cause his death. After lapse of around two years and with too, without there being any complain of abusing the liberty so granted to them, I do not deem it appropriate to allow re-apprehension of the accused and to take them into custody. One of the petitioner is aged about 62 years. There seems no justification for cancellation of bail and, therefore, the order dated 10.05.2023 is not sustainable in eyes of law."

Hence, in view of the observations made above and in light of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Bakshi Ram & Ors. (supra), this Court is inclined to allow the present misc. petition. The order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Sessions Judge, Pali in Criminal Misc. Case No.14/2026 is hereby quashed and set aside. The bail bonds furnished by the petitioners under Section 478 BNSS (436 of Cr.P.C.) would continue till the culmination of the trial.

The stay petition and all pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

This Court has gone through the order dated 04.02.2026.

The learned trial court has cancelled the bail-bonds merely

on the ground of non-bailable offence has been added.

(Uploaded on 14/03/2026 at 03:52:52 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:11900] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1809/2026]

The law as settled by this Court in Bakshi Ram & Ors. Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition

No.553/2023, decided on 23.5.2023) as well as in Sunil

Bhatia & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Criminal

Misc. Petition No.855/2026, decided on 18.02.2026), wherein it is

held that merely on addition on non-bailable offence cannot be a