JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 08.01.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 1 Khetri, Rajasthan in Criminal Misc. Case No. 129/2023 whereby, the learned Trial Court has revoked the bail bonds of the accused-petitioners (granted under Section 436 of Cr.P.C.) in F.I.R. no. 203/2023 registered at Police Station Mehada, District Neemkathana, Nyay Kshetra, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 504 of I.P.C. 2. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to call for the entire record of the case and after examining the same allow the present criminal misc. petition and the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, District Jaipur, in Criminal Misc. Case No.129/2023 (Investigating officer Vs. Narpal and others) may kindly be quashed and set aside. Any other beneficial order or direction which the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that in a nut-shell the factual matrix of the instant matter is that after culmination of the initial investigation the accused-petitioner was charged with sections 341, 323, 504, 506/34 of I.P.C. Howsoever, the accused-petitioners were enlarged on bail (filed under section 436 of Cr.P.C.) considering the simple nature of injuries inflicted. Subsequently, the police file was sent to the Circle Inspector for his opinion, who opined that an offence under section 308 of I.P.C. is also made out. 4. In this backdrop, learned counsel had averred that the Circle Officer sans considering the medical reports furnished by the Medical Officer/ Expert Doctor intervened in the instant timeline and added an offence under section 308 of I.P.C. against the accused-petitioner, without tendering any reasonable explanation. Subsequently, respondent no. 2 filed a bail cancellation application under section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. (dated 14.12.2023). Resultant to which, turning a blind eye to the medical report and the submissions made by the police officers at the earlier stage (qua the fact that all the offences are bailable in nature), the bail bonds of the petitioners were revoked vide the impugned order (Annexure-4). 5. Resultant to which, turning a blind eye to the medical report and the submissions made by the police officers at the earlier stage (qua the fact that all the offences are bailable in nature), the bail bonds of the petitioners were revoked vide the impugned order (Annexure-4). 5. At this juncture, learned counsel had placed reliance upon the order dated 12.02.2024 and had averred that the said order categorically notes that the petitioner no. 2 i.e. Smt. Sarita was arrested therefore, the instant petition was dismissed as having become infructuous to the extent of the petitioner no. 2 and an immunity of no arrest to be carried out was granted qua the petitioner no. 1. Though the petitioner no. 2 was subsequently released on bail. 6. Considering the crucial factual matrix of the instant matter vide orders dated 04.07.2024 and 13.08.2024 the Investigating Officer and the concerned Superintendent of Police were directed to mark presence in the Court. In compliance of the directions of the Court, the officers have marked presence and have tendered explanation qua the subsequent addition of offence under section 308 of I.P.C. against the petitioners. Nonetheless, this Court is not absolutely satisfied with the explanation so tendered, as no bona fide and definitive rationale behind the said action appears. 7. Ergo, considering the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the instant matter, juxtaposing the averments raised by the learned counsel for both the sides and the police officers present in the Court, and scanning the record this Court is of the following opinion: 7.1 That the instant dispute was inter-se between the parties, wherein, cross-FIRs were lodged by the petitioners and the then complainants. 7.2 That in the report undersigned by the medical officer, it is categorically noted that the nature of injuries was simple. 7.3 That the Investigating Officer vide application dated 14.12.2023 urged to add an offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. qua the petitioners. Howsoever, it is noted that the medical report states the nature of injuries inflicted to be simple, and the said letter was furnished neglecting the same, sans any substantial cogitate. 7.3 That the Investigating Officer vide application dated 14.12.2023 urged to add an offence under Section 308 of I.P.C. qua the petitioners. Howsoever, it is noted that the medical report states the nature of injuries inflicted to be simple, and the said letter was furnished neglecting the same, sans any substantial cogitate. For the sake of convenience the relevant extract from the letter dated 14.12.2023 (Annexure- R/1) is reproduced herein below: ^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd izdj.k la[;k 203@2023 fnukad 16-10-23 /kkjk 341] 323] 504] 506 Hkknl Fkkuk esgkMk dh i=koyh vki }kjk ckn vuqla/kku vkns'kkFkZ dk;kZy; gktk ij izkIr gqbZ gSA izdj.k dh i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;k rks et:c Jh yfyr iq= Jh jrhjke ds pksV izfrosnu u0 125 fnukad 12-10-23 ds eqrkfcd et:c ds flj esa pksV u0 01- 2x2 cm o pksV u0 02- 5x2 cm dh pksV vafdr gSA vr% izdj.k esa /kkjk 308 Hkknl tksMh tkdj xgurk ls vuqla/kku fd;k tkdj 07 fnol esa i=koyh vkns'kkFkZ bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr djsaA^^ 7.4 That during the course of interaction with the police officers it was brought to the notice of the Court that the said action of the Investigating Officer was underwritten by the Senior Circle Officer. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to mention that no reasonable explanation for the said action is tendered by either of the officers. 7.5 That resultant to the aforementioned, the bail cancellation application was preferred and the impugned order was passed whereby, the bail granted to the petitioners was cancelled. 8. In this regard this Court is of the view that “Bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is a principle that's well-established in judicial pronouncements and is in line with the provisions enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This principle means that liberty is the rule and deprivation is the exception, and deprivation can only be made by a valid and reasonable procedure established by law. Moreover, it is a settled position of law that a bail can only be cancelled if there appear any of the risks which include violation of the bail conditions; risk of flight; public safety concerns; sound judicial discretion; abuse or misuse of bail; interference with the witnesses; tampering of evidences; creating nuisance or delaying justice. 9. Nevertheless, in the matter in hand no such observation is spelled out by the learned Trial Court whilst passing the impugned order. 9. Nevertheless, in the matter in hand no such observation is spelled out by the learned Trial Court whilst passing the impugned order. Withal, reliance can be placed upon the ratio encapsulated in Jalaluddin Khan vs The Union Of India reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1945 wherein, it was opined that even if the allegations of the prosecution are of serious nature, but the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. The relevant extract from the said ratio is reproduced herein below: “21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the Appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the Rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same Rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The Rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed Under Article 21 of our Constitution.” 10. In précis of the aforementioned, it can be noted that the police authorities without having any reasonable justification added a surplus provision for an offence, overlooking the medical report. Resultant to the said arbitrary action of the police authorities’ impugned order dated 08.01.2024 was passed sans stating any reasons for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. 11. In précis of the aforementioned, it can be noted that the police authorities without having any reasonable justification added a surplus provision for an offence, overlooking the medical report. Resultant to the said arbitrary action of the police authorities’ impugned order dated 08.01.2024 was passed sans stating any reasons for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioners. 11. In light of the aforementioned, and specifically taking not of the fact that no reasonable rationale is tendered by the police authorities in the said application/letter nor before the Court, it is deemed apposite that the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 be set aside, along with all its consequential proceedings. The cognizance/grant of bail u/s 436 of Cr.P.C. order dated 03.01.2024, to the extent of granting bail to the petitioners, is upheld. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. No orders as to cost. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.