Rajasthan High Court
CRLBC/10/2026 of JAGDISH SHARMA S/O BABU LAL Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 25 April 2026
JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Cancellation Application No. 10/2026 Jagdish Sharma S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ramgir Khurd, Police Station Aarona, District Guna (M.p.) ----complainant/Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Second Bail Cancellation Application No. 10/2026
Jagdish Sharma S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Ramgir Khurd, Police Station Aarona, District Guna (M.p.)
----complainant/Petitioner
Versus
1.
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
……...Respondent
2.
Sumit S/o Gordhan, R/o Kawai, Thana Kawai, District Baran.
3.
Ankit S/o Gordhan, R/o Kawai, Thana Kawai, District Baran.
----Respondents/ Accused
For Complainant/
Petitioner(s)
:
None present
For State
:
Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Order
25/04/2026
1. No
one is present on behalf of
the complainant/petitioner as well as for accused/respondents.
2. This second application for cancellation of bail has been filed by the complainant/petitioner under Section 483(3) of B.N.S.S., 2023 to set aside the order dated 17.02.2023 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. 2nd Bail Application No. 6439/2022.
3. As per the averments made in the memo of application for cancellation of bail, the ground agitated for cancellation of the bail application, is that the accused-respondents were allowed bail by suppression of material facts i.e. the criminal antecedents and
(2 of 3) [CRLBC-10/2026] such suppression constitutes fraud on the Court. It has also been averred that there was threat, intimidation or pressure exerted by the accused-respondents.
4. The complainant/petitioner has never disclosed any incident or evidence of threat, intimidation or pressure, which is said to have been exerted by the accused-respondents. The Court while granting the bail to the accused-respondents vide order dated 17.02.2023, has taken into consideration the evidence of the material witnesses i.e. P.W. 1 Shreelal and P.W. 7 Jagdish Sharma, etc.
5. This second bail cancellation application has also been filed on the same grounds which were agitated by the complainant/petitioner in his earlier bail cancellation application bearing No. 34/2023, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.09.2023.
6. In the opinion of this Court, this subsequent application for cancellation of bail on the same grounds, which were agitated in the earlier bail cancellation application after about two and a half years, is a misuse of process of law and same deserves to be dismissed.
7. The complainant/petitioner has not been able to show any material fact on record so as to bring the case within the purview of the grounds for cancellation of bail granted to the accused-respondent. The second application for cancellation of bail has been filed after about two and a half years of grant of bail without there being any subsequent event, hence, this Court finds no material fact in this case.
(3 of 3) [CRLBC-10/2026]
8. Accordingly this second application for cancellation of the bail filed by the complainant/petitioner is dismissed. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /1