Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vijesh Kumar @ Vijay Purohit vs State on 4 August, 2021
Bench: Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 756/2020
Vijesh Kumar @ Vijay Purohit S/o Sh. Amara Ram, Aged About
30 Years, B/c Purohit, R/o Kuda Dhavecha, Police Station
Bagoda, District Jalore (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State, Through Pp
2. Bagada Ram S/o Sh. Nethi Ji, B/c Purohit, R/o
Sanwalavas, Police Station Karada, Tehsil Raniwara,
District Jalore (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Gulab Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr Anees Bhurat, Public Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR
Judgment / Order
04/08/2021
Heard.
The defects pointed out by the Office are waived at this
stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order
dated 07.01.2019, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases,
Jalore has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence
under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4, 5(i)/6 of
POCSO Act and ordered for issuing warrant of arrest against the
accused persons.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that
he has limited prayer that issuance of arrest warrant for securing
presence of the petitioner may be converted to bailable warrant
while resorting to sub-sec.(2) of Sec.70 CrPC. In support of his
(2 of 3) [CRLR-756/2020]
submission, learned counsel relied on judgment in the case of
Vivek @ Pappu Jat & another Vs State of Rajasthan: 2018(11)
CrLR (Raj.) 259.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and
submitted that looking to seriousness of the offence, the trial
court has passed the order for summoning presence of the
accused-petitioner by warrant of arrest.
Perused the impugned order passed by the trial court.
In the case of Vivek @ Pappu Jat (supra), the coordinate
Bench of this Court observed as follows:
"6. Upon perusal of impugned order, it is abundantly
clear that the investigating agency has submitted
negative final report in the matter and it was only the
learned Trial Court which has, prima facie, notice some
incriminating evidence against the petitoners for taking
cognizance and as consequence of which, it has issued
process for ensuring attendance of the accused-
petitioners. The legal position is no more res integra
that when a Court is summoning an individual as
accused, in normal circumstances, either the summons
are to be issued at the first instance or bailable warrant
and if the accused is not responding to bailable warrant
then Court may resort to issuing non bailable warrant.
Moreover, sub-section (2) of Section 70 CrPC prescribes
for cancellation of non-bailable warrant.
7. Supreme Court in Inder Mohan's case (supra) has
considered this aspect threadbare and has opined that
in normal course of events, at the first instance, Court
is not expected to issue arrest warrant. The said view is
also subsequently followed by the learned Single Judge
of this Court in Israk & ors. Vs The State of Rajasthan
and Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan."
(3 of 3) [CRLR-756/2020]
In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion and deem it
proper to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in granting limited
indulgence to the petitioner.
Accordingly, this Revision Petition is partly allowed and the
order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act Cases, Jalore in FIR No.03/2017, to the extent of issuing non-
bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner Vijesh Kumar @
Vijay Purohit s/o Amara Ram is modified and converted into
bailable warrants.
(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J
1-MMA/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
