[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Urn: Crlmp / 6204U / 2026Manish vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:20669) on 1 May, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:20669]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3459/2026
Manish S/o Mahaveer Bairwa, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Tehnal
P.S. Shahpura Dist. Shahpura At Present R/o Jag Jeevan Nagar
Kachchi Basti Kawakheda Bhilwara
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sikander Khan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
01/05/2026
1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of
the BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 04.04.2026 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Bhilwara in Sessions Case No. 08/2024
(State vs. Shoyeb & Anr.), whereby the learned Sessions Judge
initiated proceedings under section 446, Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, 'CrPC'), and under Sections 82 and
83, CrPC, in connection with FIR No.275/2023, registered at Police
Station Sadar Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, for offences punishable
under Sections 302, 201, 394 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
(hereinafter, 'IPC').
2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 13.10.2023,
the complainant Biju Banjara submitted a written report stating
that on 12.10.2023 at about 8:00 AM, his sister-in-law (bhabhi),
Smt. Sita Devi, had gone outside but did not return till evening,
whereupon a missing report was lodged. Subsequently,
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20669] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3459/2026]
information was received that her dead body had been found at
Priyadarshni Nagar, and upon reaching the spot, the complainant
found police and other persons present and identified the body,
pursuant to which FIR No. 275/2023 was registered under
Sections 302, 201 and 394 IPC. During investigation, statements
of prosecution witnesses were recorded and a charge-sheet came
to be filed against the petitioner under the aforesaid provisions.
2.1 Thereafter, on 17.03.2026, the petitioner did not appear
before the Learned Sessions Judge. Due to absence of the
petitioner, on 04.04.2026, the learned Sessions Judge forfeited his
bail bond and initiated proceedings under Section 446, Cr.P.C. and
under Sections 82 and 83, Cr.P.C.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner respectfully submits that
the petitioner has never intended to delay or obstruct the course
of trial proceedings; it is only on 17.03.2026 that, for the first
time, the petitioner could not appear before the learned trial court
due to lack of knowledge of the date of hearing, as the same was
not communicated to him by his counsel. It is further submitted
that the said absence was neither willful nor deliberate. The
petitioner is now ready and willing to appear before the learned
trial court and to furnish fresh bail bonds, and therefore, in the
interest of justice, one final opportunity may kindly be granted to
him.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the
petitioner had violated the conditions of the bail bond and
therefore, the proceedings were rightly initiated against him.
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20669] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-3459/2026]
Thus, the present petition holds no merit and is liable to be
dismissed.
5. Heard and perused the material available on record.
6. This Court has considered the order dated 22.10.2024
passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Tarun Upadhyay
Vs. State of Rajasthan bearing S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition
No.7296/2024, wherein it was observed as under:-
"4. Reference may be had to a judgment in case title
Mohammad Haras Vs. State of Punjab, (CRM-M
No.31385/2023, decided on 07.07.2023) relevant
whereof, for ready reference, is reproduced as below:-
"5. Heard.
6. No doubt, learned trial Court has got discretion
to cancel the bail, however, it is well settled that
before passing such an order, Court is required to
issue notice to the accused so as to afford him an
opportunity to explain as to why the bail should not
be cancelled. Such course has not been adopted by
learned Judge, Special Court, Sangrur in the instant
case. On this ground alone, impugned order to the
extent of cancellation of bail deserves to be set aside.
7. Moreover, cancellation of bail is a serious
matter and can have significant impact on the life of
a person. Matters of personal liberty ought not to be
taken so lightly and in such mechanical manner as in
the case herein.
8. In the premise, impugned order is set aside.
Earlier bail order stands revived on bail bond and
surety bond already furnished by petitioner before
learned trial Court. Petitioner is directed to join
proceedings before learned trial Court within three
weeks from today and shall continue to appear before
learned trial Court without default.
9. Petition is accordingly allowed."
5. As regards the directions issued by the learned
trial court to proceed against the sureties under Section
446 Cr.P.C., the same is also a serious procedural
fallacy committed by the learned trial Magistrate and
cannot be sustained. In this context, guidelines
enunciated in judgment titled In a case titled Varinder
Singh v. State of Punjab (Punjab and Haryana High
Court:- 2023:PHHC:104379) are relevant.
6. In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order
directing the forfeiture of the bail-bonds of the petitioner
accused and initiating proceedings against his surety
under Section 446 Cr.P.C.(corresponding Section 491 of
BNSS), ibid, has to be necessarily set aside. It is so
ordered.
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:37 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:20669] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-3459/2026]
7. Consequently, the impugned order dated
27.06.2024 is set aside. The original bail bonds of the
petitioner accused as well as bonds of his sureties are
restored and trial to proceed further, in accordance with
law."
7. In view of the above, the present misc. petition is allowed
in terms of the order passed in Tarun Upadhyay (supra). The
order dated 04.04.2026, whereby, proceedings were initiated
under section 446, CrPC (Section 491 of BNSS, 2023) as well as
under section 82 and 83, Cr.P.C.(Sections 84 and 85 of BNSS,
2023), is hereby set aside. The original bail-bond of petitioner
accused as well as bonds of his sureties are restored and learned
Sessions Judge shall proceed further in accordance with law.
8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
35-Ashutosh/-
(Uploaded on 04/05/2026 at 03:47:37 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
