Ramesh Kumar Siyag vs Sumit Mittal
2021 Latest Caselaw 18661 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6594/2021

Ramesh Kumar Siyag S/o Sh. Atmaram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chak 18 Spd Tehsil Pilibanga, Dist. Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus Sumit Mittal S/o Sh. Nmao Prakash Mital, R/o 19, Sanjay Colony, Sri Ganganagar.

                                                                ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. VK Bhadu
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. S.K. Bhati, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR Order

08/12/2021

The present misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner

against the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the Special Judicial

Magistrate (NI Cases) No. 2 Sri Ganganagar, in Criminal Case No.

376/2016, whereby the application preferred by the petitioner for

exemption from appearance was rejected and the petitioner was

summoned through arrest warrant.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is true that

vide order dated 25.02.2021, this Court converted the arrest

warrant of the petitioner in bailable warrant for appearance but for

the reasons beyond control, the petitioner could not make himself

available before the trial court on the date fixed. He further

submits that the petitioner was suffering from fever and because

of the fear of Pandemic COVID-19 prevailing in the country, he

was not able to appear before the trial court on the date fixed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner

(2 of 2) [CRLMP-6594/2021]

will appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing

without any excuse and, therefore, the arrest warrant issued

against the petitioner may be converted into bailable warrant in

the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the

case Indramohan Goswami Vs. State of Uttaranchal

reported in 2008 AIR SC 25.

I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone

through the order dated 18.10.2021.

It is true that the petitioner has not appeared before the trial

court on the dates fixed by the trial court, despite the opportunity

given by this Court vide order dated 25.02.2021. However, taking

into consideration, the fact that the petitioner was suffering from

fever and in the present time of Pandemic COVID-19, the threat

gloom over everybody. This Court feels that the absence of the

petitioner before the trial court is genuine and bona fide.

In these circumstances, the present petition is allowed and

the order dated 18.10.2021 is modified to the extent that instead

of the arrest warrant, the petitioner is summoned through the

bailable warrant on the undertaking by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner will appear on the next date fixed

without any excuse or failure.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J

252-payal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)