ORDER : 1. This criminal misc. cancellation of bail application under Section 483 (3) of BNSS has been preferred on behalf of the complainant against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Shrimadhopur, Rajasthan, whereby, bail application of the accused-respondent No.2 was allowed. 2. Learned counsel for the complainant-petitioner submits that the bail application of respondent No.2 was wrongly allowed. It is specifically mentioned in the suicidal note of the deceased that the petitioner in pretext of marriage established sexual relationship with her and thereafter, deceited the deceased. Learned Court below did not consider the suicidal note, the suicidal note itself is indicated to the fact that the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. It is also contended that on behalf of the petitioner advocate appeared before the Court below but the Court below did not give opportunity to advocate of petitioner to oppose the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Jagjeet Singh & Ors. vs. Ashish Mishra @ Monu & Anr. passed in Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2022, whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court in unequivable terms held that victim has unbridled participatory rights from the stage of investigation till the culmination of the proceedings in an appeal or revision. The bail application shall be decided on merits and after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the victims as well. Therefore, the bail granted to the respondent No.2 deserves dismissal. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has vehemently opposed the cancellation of bail application and contended that prima-facie there was no evidence to the fact that soon before the death of the deceased, the respondent No.2 instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Mere failure of relationship cannot be a ground to presume that the respondent No.2 abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The deceased was a major girl and after grant of bail, respondent No.2 has not breached any conditions enshrined in the bail. It is also contended that mere filing of the power on behalf of the complainant, was not enough. Learned Court below did not record the presence of complainant advocate in the order and there is every possibility that on the day, the advocate for the complainant was not present before the Court, therefore, the cancellation of bail application of the complainant-petitioner may be dismissed. 5. Learned Court below did not record the presence of complainant advocate in the order and there is every possibility that on the day, the advocate for the complainant was not present before the Court, therefore, the cancellation of bail application of the complainant-petitioner may be dismissed. 5. Heard and perused the material available on record. 6. Learned Court below after perusing the material available on the record granted bail to the respondent No.2, though, the deceased left a suicidal note alleging that the respondent No.2 in pretext of marriage established sexual relationship with her and thereafter, deceited her. Apart from the suicidal note, there is no other corroborative evidence available on record to the fact that soon before the death, the deceased was abetted which resulted into her suicidal death, therefore, considering the above facts, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the order of grant of bail passed in favour of the respondent No.2. 7. Accordingly, the present criminal misc. cancellation of bail application is hereby, dismissed.