Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sumitra vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:8086) on 15 February, 2024
Author: Madan Gopal Vyas
Bench: Madan Gopal Vyas
[2024:RJ-JD:8086]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7779/2023
Sumitra W/o Hardayal Choudhary, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Gulzar Khan Makan Pik House Road Gandhinagar, Sikar,raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.R. Choudhary, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
15/02/2024
The present criminal miscellaneous petition under Section
482 of CrPC has been filed by the petitioner against the order
dated 21.11.2023 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge
No. 1, Bhilwara (hereinafter referred to as 'the learned trial
Court'), in Criminal Case No. 733/2011 whereby the learned trial
Court issued arrest warrant against her.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner was declared as absconded vide order dated 22.06.2013
by the learned trial Court in Regular Criminal Case No.733/2011
(7/2002). It is submitted that an FIR No. 244/1999 was registered
at Police Station Bhilwara alleging offences under Section 409,
420, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of the IPC, wherein the
petitioner was not made an accused, however, her name was
included at a later stage only on the basis that the petitioner was
the principal of the school. It is submitted that the petitioner was
[2024:RJ-JD:8086] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7779/2023]
never informed about the pendency of the proceedings initiated
pursuant to aforesaid FIR. It is submitted that ultimately vide
judgment dated 30.08.2018, all the other co-accused except the
petitioner were acquitted of the charges levelled against them
while giving them benefit of doubt, but since, the petitioner was
declared as absconded, therefore, the benefit of the judgment was
not given to the petitioner and she was told by the other co-
accused persons/her colleagues that all of them including the
petitioner have been acquitted of the charges levelled against
them. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is in these
circumstances that the petitioner could not appear in the criminal
proceedings initiated against her pursuant to FIR aforesaid.
Further, it is submitted that all these factual aspects of the matter
had been brought to the knowledge of the learned trial Court while
deciding application under Section 70(2) of CrPC, but the learned
trial Court by holding that the case is pending consideration
against the petitioner since 2002, rejected the application of the
petitioner and issued an arrest warrant against her. Therefore, it is
submitted that in view of the above, the arrest warrant issued
against the petitioner may be converted into bailable warrant.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that the
petitioner has been declared absconded since the year 2002,
therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly passed the order
impugned.
4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court deems it appropriate to convert the arrest warrant of
the petitioner into bailable warrant, and hence, it is ordered that
[2024:RJ-JD:8086] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7779/2023]
the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner is converted into
bailable warrant. Learned trial Court is directed to issue bailable
warrant for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial
Court on or before 04.03.2024.
6. With the above directions, the present criminal miscellaneous
petition is disposed of.
7. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J
258-manila/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
