Zakir Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12532)
2026 Latest Caselaw 3970 Raj

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 3970 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 March, 2026

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Zakir Hussain vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12532) on 16 March, 2026

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2026:RJ-JD:12532]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1757/2026

Zakir Hussain S/o Fakir Mohammad, Aged About 67 Years,
Resident Of Kundala Police Station Mahi Dam Bhungra District
Banswara Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                 ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Rajendra Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. N.S. Chandawat, Dy.G.A.



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

16/03/2026

1. The present petition has been instituted by the petitioner

assailing the order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the learned Addl.

Sessions Judge, Banswara, in Sessions Case No.292/1992

whereby he was declared an absconder and a warrant of arrest

came to be issued against him. The petitioner seeks indulgence of

this Court for appropriate relief on the premise that the said

proceedings were not undertaken in strict adherence to the

procedure established by law.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the material as made available to this Court.

3. A perusal of the material placed before this Court reveals

that a criminal case came to be registered in respect of an alleged

offence of assault against accused persons namely Mushtak

Ahmad, Ishaq Mohammad, Satar Ahmad and Zakir Hussain, the

present petitioner. The genesis of the incident appears to lie in a

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:59:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12532] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1757/2026]

domestic discord which, owing to escalating tensions, assumed

the complexion of a criminal altercation.

3.1. It further emerges from the record that upon culmination of

investigation, accused Mushtakr Ahmad and Ishaq Mohammad

were put to trial and were ultimately acquitted vide judgment

dated 29.11.1994. Subsequently, another accused, namely Satar

Ahmad, came to be arrested and charge-sheeted at a later stage,

resulting in a separate trial being registered as Sessions Case

No.292/1992. The said proceedings culminated in judgment dated

02.08.2021, whereby the accused was acquitted of certain

charges, while being convicted only under Sections 452/34 and

366/34 IPC, and, considering the attendant circumstances, was

extended the benefit of probation.

3.2. So far as the present petitioner is concerned, it is not in

dispute that he remained shown as absconding for a considerable

period of time. However, the petitioner has specifically pleaded

that he was never made aware of the registration of the criminal

case against him and that the proceedings for declaring him an

absconder were not conducted in strict conformity with the

statutory mandate. It is asserted that he had continuously resided

at his ordinary place of residence and that neither any warrant nor

any notice or summon was ever served upon him, either

personally or otherwise, as required under law.

3.3. It is further averred that the petitioner is a law-abiding

citizen and is now ready and willing to submit himself to the

jurisdiction of the Court and to face the trial in accordance with

law.

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:59:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12532] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1757/2026]

4. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the

material available on record has been carefully scrutinized.

4.1. It is not disputed that the case emanates from a domestic

dispute and that the principal accused persons have already faced

trial. One set of accused persons has been acquitted outright,

while in the subsequent trial the accused was granted the benefit

of probation, thereby indicating that the gravity of the incident, in

its ultimate adjudication, did not warrant severe penal

consequences.

4.2. It is further discernible that the petitioner's alleged

involvement appears to be peripheral in nature, and significantly,

there is no material on record to demonstrate that summons or

warrant had been duly served upon him prior to initiating

proceedings for declaring him an absconder. The absence of

proper service strikes at the root of the proceedings undertaken

under the provisions relating to abscondence, which are required

to be invoked with due circumspection and only after exhausting

the prescribed procedural safeguards.

4.3. Taking into account the totality of circumstances, particularly

the nature of the dispute, the outcome of trials against co-

accused, the apparent procedural infirmity in declaring the

petitioner as absconding, and the expressed willingness of the

petitioner to face the proceedings, this Court is of the considered

view that the ends of justice would be subserved by affording the

petitioner an opportunity to participate in the trial, subject to

appropriate conditions.

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:59:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12532] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1757/2026]

5. In light of the submissions and the circumstances of the

case, the present petition is partly allowed, and the Court hereby

issues the following directions:

(a) The petitioner is hereby directed to appear before the learned

trial court on or before 18.04.2026, and shall, in accordance with

the applicable provisions of law, submit an application for the

grant of regular bail.

(b) Upon the petitioner's appearance before the trial court, the

proceedings initiated for declaring him an absconder, pursuant to

Sections 82 to 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), shall

be immediately discontinued and shall stand terminated without

further ado.

(c) The warrant of arrest previously issued against the petitioner

shall stand withdrawn forthwith and shall have no further effect.

(d) Upon the petitioner's appearance before the trial court and the

submission of a duly executed regular bail application, the

petitioner shall be released on bail on the same day, contingent

upon the furnishing of appropriate bail bonds, the sufficiency of

which shall be subject to the satisfaction of the learned

Magistrate.

(e) Furthermore, it is directed that, until 18.04.2026, the

petitioner shall not be subjected to arrest in connection with the

aforementioned FIR, in the interest of justice and procedural

fairness.

(f) In addition, upon his appearance, the petitioner shall deposit a

sum of ₹5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) before the learned

trial court, as a condition for the relief granted herein.

(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:59:01 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:12532] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1757/2026]

(g) The amount so deposited by the petitioner shall, thereafter, be

transferred to the account of the District Legal Services Authority,

Banswara, in order to further the objectives of legal aid and the

administration of justice.

(h) Subject to the full compliance with the aforementioned

conditions, the petitioner shall be permitted to face the trial in

accordance with the law, and he shall continue to be entitled to all

legal rights and protections afforded to him under the provisions

of law.

6. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present