STATE OF RAJASTHAN vs SMT SEEMA JAKHAR

[2026:RJ-JD:23215]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No. 75/2024
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Petitioner
Versus
Smt Seema Jakhar Spouse/o Sukhram Kaliram, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Village Nandiya Prabhawati, Police Station
Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Presently Vidhyadhar Nagar, Bjs
Colony, Jodhpur Currently Sho Police Station Vill Barloot District
Sirohi
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Gurjar
Mr. Lalit Kishor Sen, PP
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhirendra Singh with
Ms. Priyanka Borana
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN
Order
REPORTABLE
14/05/2026
1. Instant bail cancellation application is filed by State of
Rajasthan under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. aggrieved from order
dated 20.07.2022 in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
8986/2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in FIR No.
143/2021 registered at police station Barloot, District Sirohi for
offence under Section 8/15 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that respondent
Seema Jakhar was working as SHO when Ramesh Kumar and
Dinesh Kumar while traveling in car were intercepted but in lieu of
illegal gratification of ₹10,00,000/- offered and paid by Hemaram
and Ashok, the matter was diluted against them and manipulated
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(2 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
to help them. He further submitted that without considering the
gravity and seriousness of offence, a Co-ordinate Bench has
allowed the bail only on the ground that the offence under Section
221 of IPC is made out and same is punishable with imprisonment
for a term of 3 years. He is submitted that the respondent have
committed offence under Section 8/15, 29, 27A and 59 of NDPS
Act. He further submitted that the bail order be recalled.
3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent and he submitted that the
respondent being a female is entitled for bail. He further
submitted that the bail order was passed on 20.07.2022 and since
then almost 4 years have lapsed so there is no ground of recall
and cancel the bail granted to the respondent.
4. Heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the
material placed on record.
5. A Co-ordinate Bench while considering the bail application of
respondent-applicant on 20.07.2022 in connection with FIR No.
143/2021 registered at police station Barloot, District Sirohi has
passed following order:-
“Having regard to the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties and material
available on record, without commenting on
merits of the case and in the facts and
circumstances of the case particularly the fact
that offence alleged against the petitioner under
Section 221 of IPC is punishable with
imprisonment for a term of three years with and
without fine, this Court is of the opinion that the
bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. filed
by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.”
6. The arguments considered by the Co-ordinate Bench are also
reproduced as under:-
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(3 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
at the time of alleged incident, petitioner was
posted as SHO Police Station Barloot, District
Sirohi. The petitioner is a lady, who is behind the
bars since 26.06.2022. She being a public
servant, there is no apprehension of her
absconding while facing trial. He further submits
that false allegations have been levelled against
the petitioner. The co-accused Hema Ram has
already been enlarged on bail by a coordinate
Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.02.2022
passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.
17390/2021. He further submits that no money
has been recovered from the possession of the
petitioner. The investigation and trial of the case
are likely to take sufficient long time to conclude.
On the above grounds, he prays that the
petitioner may be enlarged on bail.”
7. The facts of the case were mentioned as under:-
“As per prosecution case, on 14.11.2021 at 7:25
PM, two persons viz. Ramesh Kumar and Dinesh
Kumar while going in car, were intercepted by the
police and after search, they were found in
possession of total 141 kgs. Of poppy straw.
Afterwards, in lieu of illegal gratification of Rs. 10
lacs/- given by co-accused Hemaram and Ashok,
petitioner is stated to have manipulated the
investigation and let free above persons and
made false entries in the Rajnamcha that persons
carrying poppy straw ran away.”
8. Recently in case of Abhimanyu Etc. Vs State of Kerala
reported as 2025 INSC 1136 wherein the appellants have
challenged the order of cancellation of bail passed by the High
Court. The observation about cancellation of bail and revocation of
order granting bail were discussed. We are reproducing following
paragraphs from said judgment as under:-
“17. Law is well settled that cancellation of bail is distinct
from revocation of an order granting bail. Bail may be cancelled
when the accused violates any of the conditions imposed. On the
other hand, an order granting bail can be revoked if such an order
is found to be perverse or illegal. In P. v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, a three-judge Bench of this Court, after analyzing
various previous decisions, discussed the distinction between the
two. Relevant paragraphs of the decision are reproduced below:
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(4 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
21. Echoing the above principle, in Ranjit Singh v. State of
M.P. [Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P., (2013) 16 SCC 797 : (2014) 6
SCC (Cri) 405], it has been held thus:
19. .... There is also a distinction between the concept
of setting aside an unjustified, illegal or perverse order and
cancellation of an order of bail on the ground that the accused has
misconducted himself or certain supervening circumstances
warrant such cancellation. If the order granting bail is a perverse
one or passed on irrelevant materials, it can be annulled by the
superior court.
22. In Abdul Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kadir Chaudhary [Abdul
Basit v. Mohd. Abdul Kaidr Chaudhary, (2014) 10 SCC 754 :
(2015) 1 SCC (Cri) 257], this Court has opined that: (SCC p. 763,
para 19)
19. Therefore, the concept of setting aside an
unjustified, illegal or perverse order is different from the concept
of cancellation of a bail on the ground of accused’s misconduct or
new adverse facts having surfaced after the grant of bail which
require such cancellation and a perusal of the aforesaid decisions
would present before us that an order granting bail can only be
set aside on grounds of being illegal or contrary to law by the
court superior to the court which granted the bail and not by the
same court.”
*
24. As can be discerned from the above decisions, for cancelling
bail once granted, the court must consider whether any
supervening circumstances have arisen or the conduct of the
accused post grant of bail demonstrates that it is no longer
conducive to a fair trial to permit him to retain his freedom by
enjoying the concession of bail during trial [Dolat Ram v. State of
Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 237]. To put it
differently, in ordinary circumstances, this Court would be loathe
to interfere with an order passed by the court below granting bail
but if such an order is found to be illegal or perverse or premised
on material that is irrelevant, then such an order is susceptible to
scrutiny and interference by the appellate court.
25. Some of the circumstances where bail granted to the accused
under Section 439(1) CrPC can be cancelled are enumerated
below:
(a) If he misuses his liberty by indulging in similar/other
criminal activity;
(b) If he interferes with the course of investigation;
(c) if he attempts to tamper with the evidence;
(d) if he attempts to influence/threaten the witnesses;
(e) if he evades or attempts to evade court proceedings;
(f) if he indulges in activities which would hamper smooth
investigation;
(g) if he is likely to flee from the country;
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(5 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
(h) if he attempts to make himself scarce by going
underground and/or becoming unavailable to the
investigating agency;
(i) if he attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his
surety.
(j) If any facts may emerge after the grant of bail which are
considered unconducive to a fair trial.
We may clarify that the aforesaid list is only illustrative in nature
and not exhaustive.
24. Cancellation/revocation of bail, no doubt, seeks to uphold trial
integrity. The dominant purpose thereof is to ensure a fair trial
and protect societal interests by preventing persons accused of a
heinous or grave crime and having tendencies to influences or
intimidate witnesses or to tamper evidence from being released.
Indeed, if such accused are likely to interfere with witness
testimony, the courts could be justified in ordering the accused to
be taken back into custody. However, at the same time, the golden
rule of bail jurisprudence propounded by Hon’ble V.R. Krishna Iyer,
J. of ‘bail being the rule and jail an exception’ cannot be ignored.
Taking back the appellants in custody for no better reason than
that the Sessions Court should not have been swayed by omission
of the Public Prosecutor to raise any objection to grant of bail
should not operate to the appellants’ prejudice, more so when two
years have passed in the interregnum.”
9. It has been laid down that bail once granted can be cancelled
only if any of the conditions or more than one are violated, if the
accused misuses liberty, temper with evidence or influences
witnesses. While allowing the appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court has
observed that the High Court have wide powers, such powers
must be exercised with circumspection, balancing the rights of the
accused with the interest of justice, in case of Gurucharan Singh
& Ors. Vs. State (Delhi Administration) reported as AIR 1978
SC 179, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered issue of
cancellation of bail under the old Code of Criminal Procedure,
1898 and also under new Cr.P.C. of 1973. After considering the
provisions under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. 1973 has held that the
Court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious
manner and not as a matter of course. The cancellation of bail is a
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(6 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
harsh step requiring strong and cogent evidence of wrong doing
and the bail once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical
manner or merely because the offence is serious.
10. Recently, Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered principal for
cancellation of bail in case of State of Karnataka Vs. Sri
Darshan etc. reported as 2025 INSC 979. The issue of
cancellation of bail were considered many times by Hon’ble Apex
Court.
11. In case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
reported as (2018) 3 SCC 22 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed
that there is difference between yardsticks for cancellation of bail
and appeal against the order granting bail. Normally the ground
for cancellation of bail are, interference or attempt to interfere
with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or
attempt to escape the due course of justice or abuse of the
concessions granted to the accused in any manner. Again in case
of Abdul Basik @ Raju & Ors. Vs. Mohammad Abdul Kadim
Chaudhary reported as (2014) 10 SCC 754 Hon’ble Supreme
Court has illustrated the grounds of cancellation of bail which are
in fact post bail events.
12. Herein this case, the grounds raised by the State of
Rajasthan are only that the Court has not considered gravity of
the charge. The order itself indicate that the Court has granted
bail considering the offence committed by the respondent-
applicant and observed that it is within purview of section 221 of
IPC. It is apparent that the grounds are sufficient, which infact
required for cancellation of bail. The application for cancellation is
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(7 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
filed only on the ground that there was an error on part of the
Court while considering the bail application of Smt. Seema Jakhar.
This Court is not sitting as an Appellate Court to judge the bail
order passed by another Co-ordinate Bench.
13. Respondent-applicant is a female and an argument is
advanced on behalf of respondent-applicant that she is a female.
Section 437(1) of Cr.P.C. provides that the Court may direct a
person refer to in clause (i) or clause (ii) be released on bail if
such person is under the age of 16 years, or is a woman or is sick
or infirm.
14. In case of Kalvakuntla Kavitha vs. Directorate of
Enforcement reported as 2024 INSC 632, Hon’ble Supreme
Court has considered grant of bail on the ground that accused is a
female and she is entitled to bail under Section 45(1) of the PMLA
Act. While referring the legal position in particular after
considering judgment in case of Saumya Chaurasia Vs.
Directorate of Enforcement reported as 2023 INSC 1073 ,
has observed that the person of tender age and women who are
likely to be more vulnerable may sometimes be misused by
unscrupulous elements and made scapegoats for committing such
crimes.
15. Having considered the totality of facts and circumstances, I
am of considered view that the state should have taken a proper
legal advise before filing instant application under Section 439(2)
of Cr.P.C. for recalling/cancellation of bail granted by a Co-ordinate
Bench. The application filed by the State is not only misconceived
but it lacks the merit, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)

(8 of 8)
[2026:RJ-JD:23215] [CRLBC-75/2024]
14. In view of discussions made here in above, the application of
cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. is hereby
dismissed.
15. Hence, the bail cancellation application is liable to be
dismissed.
16. Accordingly, S.B. Criminal Bail Cancellation Application No.
75/2024 stands dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J
216-ANAND
(Uploaded on 18/05/2026 at 03:19:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/06/2026 at 12:25:28 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)