Dismissed

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Nov 2025CRLBC/81/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to an accused respondent. The petitioner alleged the accused misused bail by threatening a witness. The Court noted the witness did not testify to the alleged incident in subsequent proceedings and dismissed the application for lack of justifiable grounds.

What did the court decide?

The bail cancellation application was dismissed; bail granted in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.80/2025 remains valid.

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat Vs the State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:46337]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 81/2025

¶4

Bhagwati Kumawat W/o Parasram Kumawat, R/o Pisangan, District Ajmer (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Rajasthan, through PP

¶8

Rajendra Kumar Sain @ Raju S/o Kailash Chand Sain, R/o Vijay Nagar Colony, Pisangan, District Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	S.K. Lamba
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	N.S. Dhakar, PP
	Mr.	Tapesh Agarwal, PP
For Accused(s)	: Mr.	Madhav Singh Rana

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Order

14/11/2025

Heard.

By way of this application under Section 483(3) of BNSS., the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court seeking cancellation of bail granted to the respondent No.2 by order dated 19.02.2025 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.80/2025 on the ground that after being released on bail, the accused respondent no.2 has misused the liberty of bail.

¶16

Learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submits that the accused respondent has misused the liberty of bail and threatened one Noratmal, who is one of the witnesses, cited in the list of witnesses of FIR No.142/2024 PS Pisangan. He submits that the accused respondent threatened the said witness not to give evidence against him in the said case. He also urged that in

[2025:RJ-JP:46337]

[CRLBC-81/2025]

(2 of 3)

connection with the said incident, another FIR (No.92/2025) has already been registered against the accused at Police Station Pisangan for offences under Sections 115(2), 126(2), 351(2) and 3(5) BNS, 2023 and after completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in that matter in the court concerned. He thus submits that facility of bail granted to the accused respondent by effect of order dated 19.02.2025 may be cancelled.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondent opposes the bail cancellation application. He submits that the complainant Noratmal, who lodged FIR (No.92/2025) is the relative of the victim herein and the said witness Noratmal, in connivance with the victim of the present case, has lodged false FIR with ill-will and just to harass the accused respondent and his family members. He also contends that after registration of FIR (No.92/2025), witness Noratmal has already been examined at trial and surprisingly, he did not utter a single word with respect to the incident, alleged to have happened with him in subsequent FIR.

¶22

On 30.06.2025, this Court directed learned Public Prosecutor to place on record factual report. In compliance of the said direction, learned Public Prosecutor has submitted a factual report dated 23.07.2025 forwarded by SHO Pisangan District Ajmer.

¶23

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶24

I have gone through the court testimony of the witness Noratmal, which was recorded after registration of FIR (No.92/2025). There has been no reference of the alleged incident. The witness did not utter a single word regarding this

[2025:RJ-JP:46337]

[CRLBC-81/2025]

(3 of 3)

alleged incident in his court testimony. Registration of second FIR (No.92/2025) against the accused respondent is a different aspect of the matter for which separate proceedings are going on and he is facing trial. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, I do not find any justifiable ground so as to cancel the facility of bail granted to accused respondent. Accordingly, I am not inclined to accept present bail cancellation application, which is dismissed as such.

¶29

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶30

GAUTAM JAIN /2

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwati Kumawat W/O Parasram Kumawat v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Yadav Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Santaya S/O Deva Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt Geeta Devi Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Man Singh S/O Kalyan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dr Kn Modi University Vs Aarif Khan S/O Shri Yakoob Ali

Vishal @ Vishu S/O Mukesh Kewat, Vs the State of Rajasthan