Allowed

Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CRLMP/7779/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the non-bailable arrest warrant against the petitioner in a criminal trial where she was acquitted in absence and converted it into a bailable warrant with a bond of Rs. 20,000/-, directing her appearance within 20 days.

What did the court decide?

The non-bailable arrest warrant was converted into a bailable warrant for Rs. 20,000/- and the petitioner was directed to appear before the learned trial court on or before 04.03.2024.

Sumitra Vs State of Rajasthan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:8086]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7779/2023

¶4

Sumitra W/o Hardayal Choudhary, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Gulzar Khan Makan Pik House Road Gandhinagar, Sikar,raj.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Priyanka Borana
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. A.R. Choudhary,PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶11

Order

¶12

15/02/2024

¶13

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]

[CRLMP-7779/2023]

(2 of 3)

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 coaccused 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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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

(3 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JD:8086]

[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.

¶24

The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 04.03.2024.

¶25

With the above directions, the present criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of.

¶26

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶27

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J

¶28

258-manila/-

Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bheraram Vs State of Rajasthan

Ganesh Patel Vs State of Rajasthan

Subhash Godara Vs State of Rajasthan

Pathan Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Radha Vs State of Rajasthan

Krishana Mehta Vs State of Rajasthan