ARJIN RAM vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN

[2026:RJ-JD:16400]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 70/2025
Arjin Ram S/o Gokal Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Jiabery
Tehsil Balesar Distriict Jodhpuur At Present Bajrang Sweett Home
Banar Circle Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sukhdevv Ram S/o Lt Shri Rugha Ram, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Jajiwal Jakhara Police Station Banar District
Jodhpur. (Presently Lodged In Dist Jail, Jodhpur)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aiadan Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 18/02/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 18/02/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17/04/2026
BY THE COURT:-
1.The present application has been instituted by the
complainant–petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023, seeking annulment
of the order whereby Respondent No.2 has been enlarged on
bail ide order dated 07.07.2025 passed by this Court in
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(2 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
SBCRLMB No.1784/2025 (Second bail) granting in
connection with FIR No.397/2024 registered at Police Station
Banar, District Jodhpur City East, for offences punishable
under the provisions of the B.N.S., 2023 .
2.The gravamen of the prosecution case, as unfurled in the
First Information Report, discloses a sustained course of
criminal conduct attributed to the respondent, encompassing
persistent threats, extortionary demands, acts of physical
intimidation, and coercive insistence upon payment of
recurring illegal gratification in the nature of monthly
ransom, culminating further in an act of vandalism
perpetrated upon the petitioner’s commercial establishment
on 01.10.2024.
2.1. The record further reveals that the respondent’s prayer
for bail had initially been declined both by the learned Trial
Court as well as by this Court, thereby indicating a prima
facie judicial satisfaction as regards the gravity of the
allegations and the attendant circumstances. However, in a
subsequent application preferred after the framing of
charges, the respondent came to be enlarged on bail.
Notwithstanding such judicial indulgence, it is alleged that
immediately upon his release, the respondent, in blatant
disregard of the conditions implicit in the grant of bail,
reverted to his coercive and intimidatory conduct, issuing
threats of dire consequences to the petitioner, reiterating
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(3 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
unlawful monetary demands, and even proclaiming, with
brazen audacity, his intent to unleash indiscriminate violence
by firing multiple rounds within the petitioner’s premises.
2.2. Constrained by an imminent and real apprehension to
his life and property, the petitioner was compelled to set the
criminal law in motion once again, resulting in registration of
FIR No. 342/2025 dated 22.10.2025 and FIR No.29/2026
dated 24.01.2026 against the respondent no. 2 (Sukhdevv
Ram). The aforesaid subsequent development, viewed in
juxtaposition with the antecedent allegations, portrays a
continuum of criminality and a manifest abuse of the
concession of bail, thereby furnishing a compelling
substratum for the present proceedings.
2.3. The post-release conduct attributed to the respondent
unmistakably reflects a calculated attempt to overawe the
complainant, subvert the due course of justice, and
undermine the sanctity of the judicial process. The repeated
acts of intimidation and extortion not only constitute a
violation of the implicit conditions of maintaining peace and
good behaviour but also engender a genuine and well-
founded apprehension regarding the safety of the
complainant and the fairness of the impending trial.
2.4. In these circumstances, the petitioner, being left with
no efficacious alternative remedy, has approached this Court
seeking cancellation of bail on the premise that the
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(4 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
respondent has grossly misused the liberty granted to him,
and that the continuance of such liberty would be inimical to
the interests of justice, fair trial, and maintenance of public
order.
3.I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through
the material as made available to this Court.
4.Despite due service of notice, none has appeared on behalf
of Respondent No. 2 (Sukhdev Ram) .
5.At the outset, this Court deems it apposite to reiterate that
the power of cancellation of bail under Section 483(3)
B.N.S.S., 2023 is not to be exercised in a routine or
mechanical manner; however, once it is demonstrated that
the liberty so granted has been abused, or that supervening
circumstances have emerged which render the continuance
of such liberty antithetical to a fair and uninfluenced trial, the
Court is not only empowered but duty-bound to recall the
concession. The jurisprudence governing cancellation of bail
is anchored not merely in the initial merits of the order
granting bail, but more significantly in the subsequent
conduct of the accused and its bearing upon the
administration of justice.
6. The concept of bail, though fundamentally rooted in the
presumption of innocence, is equally conditioned by the
expectation that the accused shall conduct himself in a
manner consistent with law and shall not, directly or
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(5 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
indirectly, attempt to subvert the course of justice. The
liberty granted is thus a conditional liberty, circumscribed by
the implicit obligation of good behaviour, non-interference
with witnesses, and abstention from any act which may
create an atmosphere of fear or intimidation. Any deviation
from these foundational expectations strikes at the very
edifice upon which the order of bail stands.
7. In the present factual conspectus, the sequence of events
post grant of bail unequivocally discloses a pattern of
conduct on the part of Respondent No.2 which is not only
inconsistent with the conditions of bail but demonstrative of
a calculated attempt to overawe the complainant and derail
the due process of law. The allegations of repeated threats,
coercive demands, and intimidation, culminating in the
registration of a subsequent FIR, constitute a clear
supervening circumstance, thereby attracting the settled
principles warranting cancellation of bail.
8. It is no longer res integra that intimidation of the
complainant or prosecution witnesses, whether direct or
indirect, constitutes one of the most compelling grounds for
cancellation of bail. The apprehension of the complainant in
the present case is neither illusory nor speculative, but is
fortified by specific allegations of threats to life and property,
including open assertions of violent reprisal. Such conduct, if
permitted to continue unchecked, would inevitably corrode
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(6 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
the sanctity of trial and reduce the judicial process to a mere
formality.
9. This Court cannot remain oblivious to the broader societal
implications of such conduct. Law is not merely a mechanism
for adjudication of disputes, but a guarantor of societal order
and individual security. When an accused, enlarged on bail,
indulges in acts of intimidation and extortion, it sends a
deleterious message that the authority of law can be
subverted through fear and coercion. The rule of law
mandates that no individual, irrespective of influence or
standing, can be permitted to operate above the legal
framework.
10.The Hon’ble Supreme Court Neeru Yadav v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 2015 SC 3703 , as well as this Court in
the case of Harshadhipati Vs. State Of Raj. & Ors (SB
Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Appln. No.66/2023
decided on 05.07.2024) , has consistently underscored
that the conduct of the accused post grant of bail is a
decisive factor in adjudicating applications for cancellation.
The said judgment lucidly expounds that where the accused,
after being enlarged on bail, indulges in acts that reflect
dominance, intimidation, or glorification of unlawful conduct,
the same constitutes a substantial supervening circumstance
justifying cancellation.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(7 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
11.In Harshadhipati, this Court has emphatically observed
that glorification of an accused or display of power and
dominance after release on bail not only undermines public
confidence in the justice delivery system but also creates an
atmosphere where witnesses may feel compelled to retract
or dilute their testimony. The ratio laid down therein squarely
applies to the present case, where the respondent has
allegedly engaged in repeated acts of intimidation and
coercion, thereby creating a palpable apprehension in the
mind of the complainant.
12. In continuation of the aforesaid observations, and to fortify
the legal position governing interference with orders granting
bail, it becomes apposite to advert to the authoritative
pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Neeru
Yadav (Supra) which lucidly delineates the contours within
which judicial discretion in bail matters is to be exercised.
13. At this juncture, it is imperative to underscore that the
grant of bail, though discretionary, is circumscribed by well-
settled legal parameters and cannot be exercised in an
arbitrary or perfunctory manner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Neeru Yadav has unequivocally held that an order granting
bail which suffers from non-consideration of relevant factors,
or is founded upon extraneous or untenable considerations
such as misplaced parity, stands vitiated in law and is liable
to be set aside.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(8 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
14. The ratio laid down therein assumes direct relevance to the
present case, particularly on the aspect that parity cannot be
invoked in a mechanical manner, divorced from the specific
role attributed to the accused and his criminal antecedents.
The Supreme Court has cautioned that where the role of the
accused is distinct and graver, or where antecedents disclose
a pattern of criminality, the principle of parity loses its
applicability. Any order granting bail in such circumstances,
without due application of mind, is rendered legally
unsustainable.
15. Further, the Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid judgment has
emphasized that criminal antecedents of the accused
constitute a vital and determinative factor in adjudicating bail
applications. The presence of a criminal history is not a mere
ancillary consideration but a substantive indicator of the
propensity of the accused to indulge in similar offences or to
interfere with the administration of justice. The failure to
duly advert to such antecedents, as held therein, amounts to
a serious infirmity, striking at the root of the bail order.
16. It has also been authoritatively expounded that the Court,
while granting bail, must remain alive to the likelihood of the
accused influencing witnesses, repeating offences, or
thwarting the course of justice. The Supreme Court has
observed that where such apprehensions are borne out from
the material on record, the grant of bail would not only be
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(9 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
imprudent but would also erode public confidence in the
justice delivery system.
17. Significantly, the judgment draws a clear distinction
between (i) cancellation of bail on account of subsequent
misconduct, and (ii) setting aside an unjustified or perverse
order granting bail. In the latter category, as in the present
case, the superior court is duty-bound to examine the
legality and propriety of the order itself, independent of any
supervening circumstances. Where relevant considerations
have been ignored, or irrelevant factors have weighed with
the Court, the order becomes vulnerable to judicial
correction.
18. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present factual
matrix, it becomes manifest that any grant or continuance of
bail, in the face of material indicating intimidation, criminal
antecedents, or misuse of liberty, would be wholly
incompatible with the settled principles of law. The
observations rendered in Neeru Yadav (Supra) reinforce
the position that judicial discretion cannot be exercised in a
manner that trivializes the gravity of the offence or overlooks
the impact of the accused’s conduct on the fairness of trial.
19. Thus, when the present case is examined on the anvil of
the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it
unequivocally emerges that the liberty of the accused cannot
be preserved at the cost of the integrity of the judicial
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(10 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
process. The balance tilts decisively in favour of safeguarding
the administration of justice, and any order to the contrary
would amount to a manifest miscarriage of justice.
20. The Court must also bear in mind that the object of
cancellation of bail is not punitive, but preventive—aimed at
ensuring that the accused does not misuse the liberty to the
detriment of a fair trial. Where the conduct of the accused
indicates a propensity to interfere with the administration of
justice, the continuation of bail would amount to an
endorsement of such conduct, which cannot be
countenanced in a system governed by rule of law.
21. The subsequent FIR lodged by the complainant, detailing
fresh acts of threat and extortion, assumes critical
significance. It is indicative of a continuing course of criminal
conduct, thereby negating any presumption of reformation or
restraint on part of the respondent. Such repetitive conduct
reinforces the apprehension that the accused, if allowed to
remain on bail, would persist in his attempts to influence and
intimidate the complainant and other witnesses.
22. Furthermore, the gravity of the allegations, coupled with
the nature of threats extended, demonstrates a conscious
effort to create an environment of fear and submission. The
assertion attributed to the respondent regarding firing
multiple rounds within the complainant’s premises is not
merely a casual threat but a manifestation of brazen
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(11 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
disregard for law and order. Such conduct, viewed in totality,
constitutes a direct assault on the administration of justice.
23. It is also a settled proposition that where the liberty
granted is misused in a manner that jeopardizes the fairness
of trial, the Court must lean in favour of cancellation rather
than preservation of such liberty. The balance between
individual liberty and societal interest tilts decisively in
favour of the latter when the former is abused to perpetrate
illegality and intimidation.
24. In the cumulative assessment of facts and circumstances,
this Court finds that the conduct of Respondent No.2, post
grant of bail, is replete with instances of intimidation,
coercion, and interference with the due course of justice.
These supervening circumstances are not only substantial
but compelling, thereby satisfying the threshold laid down for
cancellation of bail.
25. Consequently, permitting the respondent to continue to
enjoy the concession of bail would be wholly incompatible
with the principles of fair trial, administration of justice, and
maintenance of public order. The facts of the present case,
when tested on the anvil of settled legal principles as
enunciated in Harshadhipati as well as Neeru Yadav and
other binding precedents, unmistakably warrant interference
by this Court.
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(12 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
26. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that the present
case is not merely one of alleged misuse of bail, but a glaring
instance where the liberty granted has been transformed into
an instrument of oppression and intimidation. In such
circumstances, the judicial conscience of this Court compels
it to intervene and rescind the concession of bail in order to
preserve the sanctity of the legal process and uphold the rule
of law.
24. This Court is further of the considered opinion that the
liberty of an accused, though sacrosanct, cannot be
permitted to metamorphose into a licence to perpetrate
illegality or to subjugate the complainant through fear and
coercion. The preservation of such liberty, in the face of its
evident misuse, would not only erode the confidence of the
public in the justice delivery system but would also render
the trial an exercise in futility.
25. In the totality of the circumstances, and particularly in view
of the continued acts of intimidation, extortion, and
interference with the due course of justice, this Court finds it
neither just nor expedient to allow Respondent No.2 to
remain enlarged on bail. The balance between individual
liberty and societal interest, in the present case, tilts
decisively in favour of the latter.
26. Consequently, the present Bail Cancellation Application
deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order dated
07.07.2025 passed by this Court in SBCRLMB No.1784/2025
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)

(13 of 13)
[2026:RJ-JD:16400] [CRLBC-70/2025]
(Second bail) granting bail to Respondent No.2 is set aside
and the concession of bail extended to him stands cancelled.
27. Respondent No.2 is directed to surrender forthwith before
the concerned Trial Court, failing which the Trial Court shall
take all necessary coercive steps to secure his presence in
accordance with law.
28. It is, however, clarified that the observations made herein
are confined solely to the adjudication of the present
application for cancellation of bail and shall not be construed
as an expression on the merits of the case, which shall be
adjudicated independently on the basis of evidence adduced
before the Trial Court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
32-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 20/04/2026 at 10:42:25 AM)
(Downloaded on 10/05/2026 at 12:47:58 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)