Dismissed

Pappuram Meena S/O Daujiram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC16 May 2025CRLBC/180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed the complainant-petitioner's application for cancellation of bail granted to Respondent No. 2. The court held that with the progress of the trial and absence of adverse conduct, no grounds existed for cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of bail to Respondent No. 2 is dismissed.

Pappuram Meena S/O Daujiram Meena Vs State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:19947]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 180/2022

¶4

Pappuram Meena S/o Daujiram Meena, Aged About 52 Years, R/ o Village Ghevri ( Gherri) Police Station Nadbai District Bharatpur Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1.	State Of Rajasthan,	Through P.p.
2.	Balla Raysees @	Mukut Bihari S/o Man Singh, R/o
	Raysees, Police	Station Nadabi District Bharatpur
	Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Ram Babu Sharma
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Sudhir Jain
	Mr.	Vivek Sharma, AGA
	Mr.	Aman Kumar,AAAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI (Through Video Conferencing)

¶11

Order

¶12

Order Reserved On : 13/02/2025 Order Pronounced On : 16/05/2025

¶13

The instant criminal misc. application under Section 439(2) CrPC has been preferred by the complainant-petitioner for cancellation of bail granted by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8412/2021 vide order dated 22.08.2022 in FIR No. 325/2020 registered at Police Station Sodala, Jaipur for offence under Sections 302, 120-B of IPC, Section 3/25 of the Arms Act and later on Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act was added.

¶14

Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitionercomplainant lodged a written report at Police Station Sodala,

(2 of 5)

[2025:RJ-JP:19947]

[CRLBC-180/2022]

Jaipur, alleging that on 08.11.2020 at around 8:30 PM, his son, Sachin Meena, was shot and murdered at Rakdi, Sodala, Jaipur. On the basis of this report, FIR No. 325/2020 was registered for offences under Sections 302 and 120B of the IPC and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act was also added as the deceased belonged to the ST category. During the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against accused Khargos @ Kapil Jangir for the aforementioned offences, while the investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC remains pending against other accused persons including Virendra Singh, Rajveer Singh @ Ranki, Balla Raysees @ Mukurt Bihari (Respondent No. 2), Hariom Faujdar, and Amit Faujdar. In the meantime, Respondent No. 2 filed a bail application under Section 438 CrPC before this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8412/2021, which was allowed vide order dated 22.08.2022. The petitioner-complainant has filed the present application seeking cancellation of the bail granted to Respondent No. 2.

¶19

Heard learned counsels for the parties as well as learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material available on record. 4. It appears that while the bail application may have received due consideration at the relevant time, the reasons may not have been elaborated in detail in the order, possibly on account of the heavy board and the case was placed at S.No. 147 on that day. It is quite likely that the Court, based on the material then available, may have formed its opinion accordingly, without a detailed

[CRLBC-180/2022]

[2025:RJ-JP:19947]

(3 of 5)

reference to the exaggerated grounds urged in support of anticipatory bail.

¶24

This Court may have taken note of these reasons as mentioned below and accordingly formed its opinion:-

¶25

i. Firstly, this Court may have considered that the other three co-accused were already granted regular bail. In this regard, reference may be made to Paragraph 39.9 of the 41st Law Commission Report, which discusses anticipatory bail. It states that when there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not likely to abscond or misuse the liberty granted on bail, it is not justified to first remand him to custody, require him to remain in prison for a few days, and then apply for regular bail.

¶26

ii. On a related note, it is pertinent to mention that Respondent No.2 was not named in the FIR, which may also have weighed with the Court while considering his bail application.

¶27

iii. Furthermore, the call detail records of both individuals were examined, and it was found that the other accused, Kapil Jangid @ Khargosh, had also made calls in question and yet was granted bail. Therefore, the case of Respondent No.2 stood on similar footing. In fact, there appeared to be more material against the co-accused than against Respondent No.2. In such a scenario, insisting that he be first arrested and then seek bail serves no real purpose, especially when it is likely that he would be granted bail subsequently. The insistence on custodial arrest in such circumstances may

[2025:RJ-JP:19947]

[CRLBC-180/2022]

(4 of 5)

lead to nothing more than a chilling effect, rather than serving any substantive legal objective. This may also have been a factor considered by the Court at that time.

¶32

Moving forward, after the grant of anticipatory bail to the accused, the challan was presented and the charge sheet was duly filed. The accused thereafter applied for regular bail, which was also granted. A supplementary charge sheet was subsequently filed as well. All other co-accused are on bail, except for one who has not yet been apprehended. The trial has since progressed, and proceedings have been held up primarily due to the nonappearance of one of the accused. Considering that approximately two and a half years have elapsed since the grant of regular bail, and there has not been a single complaint or allegation regarding any misconduct on the part of the accused post the grant of anticipatory or regular bail, this Court finds no compelling reason to cancel the bail at this stage. The passage of time, coupled with the absence of any adverse post-release conduct, reinforces the view that cancellation of bail at this juncture is neither warranted nor justified.

¶33

Though Section 18 of the SC/ST Act imposes a bar on the grant of anticipatory bail, but if a complaint does not establish a prima facie case under the Act, the restrictions under Section 18 of the Act do not apply. Thus, this court is not precluded from granting anticipatory bail to the accused and cannot curtail person’s liberty. Reliance in this regard was placed on the

[2025:RJ-JP:19947]

[CRLBC-180/2022]

(5 of 5)

judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India , reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 .

¶38

Even assuming that this Court had granted bail on an erroneous consideration, any act of revisiting, reconsidering, or reviewing the said order is impermissible in light of the bar contained under Section 362 of the CrPC. This legal position stands fortified by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal & Ors. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 338 .

¶39

This Court is of the considered opinion that, as of now, approximately two and a half years have elapsed since the grant of anticipatory bail and thereafter, the accused was granted regular bail by the trial Court. It is settled law that once regular bail is granted, the anticipatory bail granted under Section 438 CrPC loses its force and ceases to have any operative effect. As on date, the accused is on regular bail, not anticipatory bail. Furthermore, there has been no adverse post-release conduct reported either after the grant of anticipatory bail or regular bail. In view of the above, this Court finds no supervening circumstances or compelling reason to cancel the bail at this stage.

¶40

Accordingly, the application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.

¶41

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶42

Mamta/415

Pappuram Meena S/O Daujiram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappuram Meena S/O Daujiram Meena v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Runwal Finance Limited Company Vs Bhanwar Lal

M/S. Shri Balaji Trading Company Vs Budaniya Trading Company

State of Rajasthan Vs Mittu Singh

Gaurav Arora S/O Krishan Kumar Arora Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics

Smt. Parbhati Devi W/O Late Shri Ladhu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chhitarmal @ Premsingh @ Premchand S/O Jagga @ Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan