[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:14185) on 25 March, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:14185]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1918/2026
1. Om Prakash S/o Jagdish, Aged About 48 Years, R/o R Vpo
32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri
Ganganagar. Raj.
2. Pawan Kumar S/o Jagdish Kumar, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil
Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar.raj.
3. Shyam Sundar S/o Jagdish, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar.raj.
4. Sandeep S/o Ramswaroop, Aged About 42 Years, R/o
Ward No. 8, Village 32 Rb, Fakirawali, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar.raj.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Budha Ram, R/o 79 Lnp First
Police Station Ghumadwali Districtsri Ganganagar Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Gharsana
Mr. I.S. Rathore
Mr. Sourav Shekhar
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Rajpurohit, PP
Mr. SR Godara
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU
Order
25/03/2026
The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, being
aggrieved by the order dated 17.01.2026, whereby their bail
bonds have been cancelled. It is submitted that in the present
case, pursuant to the issuance of notice under Section 35, the bail
bonds of the petitioners had already been furnished before the
Investigating Agency.
In the present case, an application was filed by the learned
Public Prosecutor for cancellation of the notice under Sections
35(4), (5) and (6) of the BNSS, and vide order dated 17.01.2026,
the same was allowed, on the ground that an offence under
Section 140(4) was found to be made out against the petitioners.
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14185] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-1918/2026]
From the impugned order, it is not clear as to whether the
bail bonds submitted by the petitioner in pursuance to the notice
under Section 35 of BNSS. In view of the same, on the previous
date, this Court directed the learned Public Prosecutor to clarify
whether the bail bonds of the petitioners had been submitted. The
learned Public Prosecutor, upon calling for and perusing the case
diary, has informed this Court that the case diary contains the bail
bonds submitted by the petitioners.
In light of the same, the effect of the order dated
17.01.2026 is, in fact, the cancellation of the bail bonds of the
petitioners, although it ostensibly refers only to the cancellation of
the notice, which effectively has resulted in cancellation of the bail
bonds.
This Court, in Bakshi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Cr.
L.R.P. No. 553/2023), has clearly held that merely because a
non-bailable offence is subsequently found during investigation,
the same cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail bonds, unless
it is shown that the petitioners have misused the liberty granted to
them. Relying on the same principle, this Court in Sunil Bhatia
vs. State of Rajasthan (CRLMP No. 855/2026) has also held
that, except in exceptional circumstances, bail bonds once
furnished should not be cancelled.
In the present case, when the bail bonds of the petitioners
were accepted, the offence under Section 140(3) of the BNS was
already alleged against them. It is stated that subsequently a
more aggravated offence under Section 140(4) of the BNS has
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14185] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-1918/2026]
been added, and on that basis an application was filed by the
SHO.
This Court has considered the averments and, in light of the
law laid down in Bakshi Ram vs. State of Rajasthan (supra)
as well as Sunil Bhatia vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), holds
that the mere addition of a non-bailable offence cannot be a
ground for cancellation of bail bonds. The
respondent-State/complainant has failed to make out any case,
and there is no finding in the impugned order dated 17.01.2026
that the petitioners misused the liberty granted to them while he
was on bail.
The learned trial Court has cancelled the notices under
Sections 35(4), (5) and (6) of the BNSS without considering the
facts that the petitioners had already submitted the bail bonds and
was on bail and the cancellation of the same would result in
cancellation of his bail bonds. The order has been passed and
absolutely perfunctory manner without assigning any cogent
reasons, which deserves to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on
the judgment in Sanjay Bhandari vs. State of Rajasthan
(SBCRLMP No. 289/2006) to contend that a revision petition is
maintainable against the impugned order. However, in that case,
the Court was dealing with orders of cognizance and framing of
charges, which are final orders. In the present case, the order
impugned is clearly an interlocutory order. There is no application
for cancellation of the bail, however, the bail bonds of the
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:14185] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-1918/2026]
petitioner stands cancelled. The order directly effects the life and
liberty of a person, as cancellation of bail bonds would result in re-
apprehension of accused-petitioner and sending him into custody
without any justifiable reason.
Hence, this Court deems it appropriate to exercise its extra
ordinary powers in the present case.
Accordingly, the present miscellaneous petition is allowed
and the order dated 17.01.2026 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Padampur, District Sriganganagar is
quashed and set aside. The bail bonds of the petitioners are
restored and will continue till the culmination of the trial.
(BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J
45-deep/-
(Uploaded on 30/03/2026 at 03:21:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
