ORDER : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1.The instant criminal misc. bail cancellation application has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner complainant under Section 483(3) BNSS praying for cancellation of the bail granted in favour of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra in Criminal Misc. Case No.775/2024 titled as “Rajesh Jalan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan”. 2. Heard learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused respondents. Perused the material available on record. 3. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in granting bail to the accused respondents. He thus prayed that the bail granted to the accused respondents be cancelled. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the accused respondents and learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail cancellation application. They submitted that the offences alleged against the accused respondents are triable by a court of magistrate and the competent criminal court has not committed any error or illegality while granting bail to the accused respondents. They thus prayed that the bail cancellation application be dismissed. 5. Upon a careful perusal of the impugned order, this Court prima facie finds that no illegality whatsoever has been committed by the competent criminal Court while granting bail to the accused-respondents. Otherwise also, the offences alleged against the accused respondents are triable by a court of Magistrate. 6. Hon’ble the Supreme Court, time and again in its judicial pronouncements, has been laying down certain conditions wherein bail granted to an accused may be cancelled. These conditions comprise certain acts and inactions of accused such as (i) the accused misuses his liberty by indulging in similar criminal activity, (ii) interferes with the course of investigation, (iii) attempts to tamper with evidence or witnesses, (iv) threatens witnesses or indulges in similar activities which would hamper smooth investigation, (v) there is likelihood of his fleeing to another country, (vi) attempts to make himself scare by going underground or becoming unavailable to the investigating agency, (vii) attempts to place himself beyond the reach of his surety, etc. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to whether the respondent- accused has flouted any of the above-mentioned conditions in the instant matter. 8. 7. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to whether the respondent- accused has flouted any of the above-mentioned conditions in the instant matter. 8. In this view of the matter, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the said order. 9. Consequently, the present application for cancellation of bail is dismissed.