‘Liberty transformed into instrument of oppression’: Rajasthan HC cancels bail of extortion accused

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has cancelled the bail of a man accused of extortion, after he resumed threatening the complainant post-release. Justice Farjand Ali passed the order on 17 April 2026 while allowing a bail cancellation application under Section 483(3) of the BNSS, 2023. That provision lets a court recall a bail order when the accused misuses the liberty granted to him.

The case traces back to FIR No. 397/2024, registered at Banar police station in Jodhpur. The complainant, Arjin Ram, who runs a sweet shop on Banar Circle, alleged that the accused had subjected him to a sustained pattern of extortion. This included persistent threats, physical intimidation, and coercive demands for monthly ransom payments. The accused also allegedly vandalised the sweet shop on 1 October 2024.

The accused’s first two bail pleas were rejected — by the trial court and by the High Court. After charges were framed in the case, he moved a second bail application before the High Court. On 7 July 2025, the High Court granted him bail in SBCRLMB No. 1784/2025.

The accused allegedly resumed his threats and demands for money. He reportedly declared that he would walk into the shop and fire multiple rounds inside the premises. This forced the complainant to approach the police again, leading to two fresh FIRs — No. 342/2025 on 22 October 2025 and No. 29/2026 on 24 January 2026, both at Banar police station.

On these facts, Arjin Ram approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the 7 July 2025 bail order.

Advocate Aiadan Choudhary, appearing for the complainant, told the Court that the accused had treated the grant of bail as a licence to continue his coercive conduct. Counsel argued that the fresh FIRs and the open threats of firing rounds at the premises showed a clear abuse of judicial indulgence. The complainant’s fear, he submitted, was not speculative but grounded in specific and repeated acts.

Despite service of notice, no one appeared on behalf of Sukhdev Ram. Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, Additional Government Advocate, assisted the Court on behalf of the State.

Justice Farjand Ali began with a note of caution. The Court observed: “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.” But once it is shown that the accused has abused the liberty given to him, the Court said it is “duty-bound to recall the concession.” In other words, discretion ends the moment the accused misuses his freedom to subvert the trial.

Bail, Justice Ali said, carries an implicit promise — that the accused will behave lawfully, not interfere with witnesses, and not create an atmosphere of fear. “Any deviation from these foundational expectations strikes at the very edifice upon which the order of bail stands,” the judge observed. Bail is not an absolute right, it is a conditional release.

The Court leaned on two precedents. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Neeru Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 2015 SC 3703) holds that post-release conduct is a decisive factor in cancellation cases. The Rajasthan High Court’s own 2024 decision in Harshadhipati v. State of Rajasthan held that when an accused glorifies his release or displays dominance, witnesses may feel forced to retract or water down their testimony. Justice Ali found both rulings applied directly here.

Applying these principles, the Court found that the accused’s conduct checked every box. Fresh FIRs had been filed. Threats had continued. The shopkeeper’s fear of being shot at inside his own premises was specific, not vague. This pattern, the Court held, was exactly the “supervening circumstance” that justifies cancellation — meaning a new development after the bail order that changes the picture.

The Court then went to the heart of the matter. This was not just a technical misuse of bail, the judge said — it was far more serious. He wrote: “The liberty of an accused, though sacrosanct, cannot be permitted to metamorphose into a licence to perpetrate illegality.” It cannot, the Court added, be used “to subjugate the complainant through fear and coercion.” In plain terms: a person on bail cannot turn his freedom into a weapon against the very person who filed the case.

“The object of cancellation of bail is not punitive, but preventive,” Justice Ali wrote. The goal is to ensure the accused does not use his freedom to derail the fair trial that is supposed to follow. In Sukhdev Ram’s case, the judge concluded, “the liberty granted has been transformed into an instrument of oppression and intimidation.”

The Court allowed the bail cancellation application. The order dated 7 July 2025 granting bail to Sukhdev Ram in SBCRLMB No. 1784/2025 was set aside. The accused was directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith. If he fails to do so, the trial court will take all necessary coercive steps to secure his presence, the Court said. Justice Ali clarified that the observations were confined to the bail cancellation application and would not affect the trial on merits.

Case details