Jagetiya Rajmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19780)
2025 Latest Caselaw 12201 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jagetiya Rajmal vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:19780) on 24 April, 2025

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2025:RJ-JD:19780]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 3192/2025

Jagetiya Rajmal S/o Purshottam Bhai, Aged About 47 Years, R/o
B-26, Pooja Apartment Ranip, Ahmadabad City, Ahmadabad
Gujarat.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Ram Singh Rawal
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

24/04/2025

1. The factual report dated 21.04.2025 received by the learned

Public Prosecutor from the office of SHO, P.S. Bichhiwara, Dist.

Dungarpur is taken on record. The factual report dated

21.04.2025 indicates that the offences under Sections 19/54(D) of

Excise Act have been found to be proved against the present

petitioner. The FIR and the factual report therefore disclosing the

commission of a cognizable offence. Thus, no case for quashing of

FIR is made out.

2. This Court upon a perusal of the case file prima facie finds

that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioner

are triable by a court of Magistrate which do not contain the

maximum punishment of more than seven years, and keeping in

mind the provisions contained in Section 41, 41-A Cr.P.C. as well

as the judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case

of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 2014 SC

[2025:RJ-JD:19780] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3192/2025]

2756, the dictum of which squarely apply mutatis mutandis to the

present case, it is directed that in case, the arrest of the petitioner

is found to be absolutely necessary by the Investigating Agencies,

instead of affecting the arrest of the petitioner at once, a prior

notice of one month shall be given to him so that he may exercise

his rights. Needless, to say that the petitioner is not precluded

from raising his grievance before the trial Court.

3. With the aforesaid direction, the misc. petition filed under

Section 528 BNSS (482 Cr.P.C.) as well as stay application are

disposed of.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 12-divya/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)