Dismissed¶41

Gopal S/O Kajod v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Nov 2025CRLBC/38/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench; CRLBC 38/2025; S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application; Gopal versus State of Rajasthan and others; dismissed on 20/11/2025 by Justice Sameer Jain; filed under Section 483(3) BNSS; FIR No.0215/2023 Police Station Hindoli District Bundi; Sections 143, 341, 323 IPC; police-granted bail; addition of non-bailable offence Section 308 after Medical Board grievous categorization on 02.02.2024; bail cancellation application cannot be treated as an appeal; only exceptional circumstances justify interference; belated application; four adjournments; Bhairu and Ors versus State of Raj 2022 (2) RLW 1495 (Raj); order dated 04.01.2025.

What did the court decide?

Once bail has been granted, the subsequent addition of a non-bailable offence does not, by itself, vitiate the earlier grant of bail. ¶36

Gopal S/O Kajod Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant Bail Cancellation Application (filed under Section 483(3) BNSS against the order dated 04.01.2025) should be allowed, resulting in cancellation of the respondents' earlier bail granted by the police. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

A bail cancellation application cannot be treated as an appeal, and only exceptional circumstances can justify interference.

¶40

Ratio / Principle

Once bail has been granted, the subsequent addition of a non-bailable offence does not, by itself, vitiate the earlier grant of bail.

¶36

Key takeaways

Considering that the Bail Cancellation Application was filed at a belated stage and that four adjournments had already been taken, the Court deemed it appropriate not to allow the Bail Cancellation Application.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail Cancellation Application dismissed - addition of non-bailable offence after grant of bail does not by itself vitiate earlier bail. S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 38/2025 (CRLBC 38/2025), High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, decided on 20/11/2025 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sameer Jain. Petitioner Gopal, complainant of FIR No.0215/2023 registered at Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323 of IPC, sought cancellation of the police-granted bail of respondent Nos. 2 to 13 through this application filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS against the order dated 04.01.2025. Nearly eight months after bail, a Medical Board (02.02.2024) categorized the head-injury X-ray as grievous and an offence under Section 308 was added, whereupon cancellation was sought; an earlier order dated 04.01.2025 (reproduced in the judgment) had already refused cancellation, citing Bhairu & Ors. Vs. State of Raj., 2022 (2) RLW 1495 (Raj.). This Court observed that bail was initially granted by police authorities treating the case as bailable, and that once bail is granted, subsequent addition of a non-bailable offence does not by itself vitiate the earlier grant; further, a bail cancellation application cannot be treated as an appeal and only exceptional circumstances justify interference. Finding the application filed at a belated stage with four adjournments already taken, the Court dismissed it.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46940]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 38/2025

¶4

Gopal S/o Kajod, R/o Subhpura, Sehaspuriya, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Ishwar Lal S/o Udalal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶9

Omprakash @ Galya S/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶10

Kushram S/o Devlal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶11

Santram S/o Khusram, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶12

Deendayal S/o Ishwar Lal, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶13

Ramswaroop S/o Foru, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶14

Durgabai W/o Khushram, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶15

Bhulabai W/o Bharama, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶16

Ratni Bai W/o Ramswaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶17

Shanti Bai W/o Ramesh, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶18

Kavita D/o Ramswarop, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Ram Swaroop, R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

¶19

Durgalal S/o Ramesh, (Minor) Through Natural Guardian Father Ramesh R/o Village Sukhpura, Police Station Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.)

----Respondents

(2 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:46940]

[CRLBC-38/2025]

¶24

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Govind Lal Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP
	Ms. Arti Sharma,PP

¶25

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶26

Order

¶27

20/11/2025

¶28

The instant S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 38/2025 is filed under Section 483(3) of BNSS in FIR No.0215/2023 registered at Police Station Hindoli District Bundi for the offence under Sections 143, 341, 323 of IPC.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the instant Bail Cancellation Application against the order dated 04.01.2025, the same is read as under:

¶30

" mHk; i{k ds rdksZa dks lquk x;k o dsl Mk;jh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k o izLrqr U;kf;d n"Vkarksa dk lq{kerk ls v/;;u dj muls ekxZn'kZu izkIr fd;k x;kA dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls tkfgj gksrk gS fd vuqla/kku ds nkSjku vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 325] 147] 149 Hkk-n-la esa ekeyk tekurh; izdfr dk gksuk ekurs gq, vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh }kjk vfHk;qDrx.k dks tekur eqpydksa ij ikcan djrs gq, tekur ij NksMk x;k gSA rRi'pkr djhc 8 ekg i'pkr fnukad 02-02-2024 dks iqu% esfMdy cksMZ ls djok, x, et:c gsejkt ds esfMdy eqvk;uk dh fjiksVZ esa mldh flj dh pksV esa isjkbZVy gM~Mh dk vfLFkHkax ik, tkus ij esfMdy cksMZ }kjk et:c gsejkt ds flj dh mDr pksV dks xaHkhj izd`fr dh izdV fd, tkus ij rRdkyhu vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh us gLrxr izdj.k esa vfHk;qDrx.k ds fo#) /kkjk 308 Hkk-na-la dk vijk/k tksMk gS] ftl vk/kkj ij ifjoknh i{k ;g izkFkZuki= izLrqr dj iwoZ esa iqfyl }kjk fy, x, vfHk;qDrx.k ds tekur eqpydksa dks fujLr djokuk pkgrk gS] fdUrq bl laca/k esa U;k;ky; dk ;g fouez er gS fd dsoy izdj.k esa xSj&tekurh; vijk/k tksM+s tkus ek= ds vk/kkj ij ;a=or rjhds ls igys

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:46940]

[CRLBC-38/2025]

ls eatwj'kqnk tekur dks fujLr fd;k tkuk drbZ U;k;laxr ugha gSA U;k;ky; ds bl er dh iqf"V cpko i+{k }kjk izLrqr lEekuuh; U;kf;d n"Vkar _Bhairu & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. 2022 (2) RLW 1495 (Raj.)_ ls Hkh gksrh gS] ftlesa Hkh ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; csap t;iqj us ;gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd ek= izdj.k esa i'pkrorhZ vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh }kjk xSj&tekurh; vijk/k tksM+s tkus ds vk/kkj ij ,d ckj eatwj dh tk pqdh tekur dks ;a=or <ax ls fujLr ugha fd;k tkuk pkfg,A gLrxr izdj.k esa dsl Mk;jh ds voyksdu ls ,slk dksbZ rF; izdV ugha gksrk gS fd vizkFkhZx.k@vfHk;qDrx.k us iwoZ esa iqfyl }kjk nh xbZ tekur dh 'krksZa dk mYya?ku fd;k gks ;k tekur dh lqfo/kk dk nq:i;ksx fd;k gksA ;gka ;g Hkh mYys[kuh; gS fd et:c gsejkt ds ?kVuk ds i'pkr gq, izFke ckj ds esfMdy eqvk;uk fjiksVZ esa flj esa dksbZ vfLFkHkx ugha ik;k **a** x;k rFkk mDr pksV izfrosnu fpfdRlk vf/kdkjh lkeqnkf;d LokLF; dsUnz] fg.Mksyh ftyk] cwanh }kjk fnukad 01-06-2023 dks rS;kj fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl Lrj ij izdj.k ds xq.kkoxq.k ij fVIi.kh fd, fcuk] izdj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa o mDr U;kf;d n"Vakr dh jks'kuh esa ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr ;g izkFkZuki= Lohdkj dj vfHk;qDrx.k dh iwoZ ls eatwj tekur dks fujLr fd;k tkuk U;k;laxr izrhr ugha gksrk gSA ifjoknh i{k }kjk izLrqr U;kf;d n`"Vkar rF;xr fHkUurk ds dkj.k gLrxr izdj.k ij gwcgw pLik ugha gksrs gSaA "

¶35

Learned Public Prosecutor has supported the instant Bail Cancellation Application.

¶36

It is observed that bail was initially granted by the police authorities, treating the case as involving a bailable offence. After nearly eight months, a Medical Board was constituted, and the X- ray injury was subsequently categorized as grievous. The Court has consciously noted that once bail has been granted, the subsequent addition of a non-bailable offence does not, by itself, vitiate the earlier grant of bail. In the given facts and circumstances, detailed reasons have already been recorded. A

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:46940]

[CRLBC-38/2025]

bail cancellation application cannot be treated as an appeal, and only exceptional circumstances can justify interference.

¶41

In the facts and circumstances of the case, considering that the Bail Cancellation Application has been filed at a belated stage and that four adjournments have already been taken, this Court deems it appropriate not to allow the Bail Cancellation Application. 6. Accordingly, the instant Bail Cancellation Application is dismissed.

¶42

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶43

JKP/222

Gopal S/O Kajod v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal S/O Kajod v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudhanshu @ Sachin S/O Shri Shivram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Manish Meena S/O Chhitarlal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Anjali Soni D/O Radheyshyam Soni W/O Shri Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Jayant Mittal S/O Shri Girraj Prasad Vs State of Rajasthan

Hasam Alias Bandri S/O Zuhru Vs State of Rajasthan

Opendra Kumar Nagar S/O Shri Jodhraj Vs State of Rajasthan