Disposed

Sukhwant Singh Son of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Oct 2025CRLMP/5027/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants in a 27-year-old criminal case after remaining absent for 11 years. The High Court allowed the application subject to conditions: paying costs to the Litigants Fund and planting 25 shady trees with proof before the trial court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sukhwant Singh Son of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Vs State of… — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:43510]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5027/2025

¶4

Sukhwant Singh Son Of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 10, Shankar Nagar, Deep Hospital, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Narendra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP

¶10

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Order

¶12

30/10/2025

¶13

By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 21.06.2024 by which the application submitted by the petitioner for converting the arrest warrants into the bailable warrants filed under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. has been rejected.

¶14

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, a revision petition was submitted, however, the same was also rejected by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metro-II vide impugned order dated 14.08.2024.

¶15

Aggrieved by the both orders, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner in the year 1997 and charge-sheet was also submitted and the petitioner was regularly appearing before the trial Court, but in the meantime, two

[2025:RJ-JP:43510]

[CRLMP-5027/2025]

(2 of 4)

accused persons expired and the witnesses were not turning up, hence, under these circumstances, the petitioner could not appear on the fateful day and accordingly his bail bonds were forfeited and he was summoned through arrest warrants for procuring his presence to face trial. Counsel submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to face the trial, therefore, the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner be converted into bailable warrants.

¶21

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was found to be absconded on 15.10.2014 and more than 11 years have passed thereafter because of the absence of the petitioner, 27 year olde case is still lying pending for its conclusion before the trial Court, hence, under these circumstances, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 7. Considering the arguments put forward by both the sides and looking to the fact that the petitioner was facing trial since 1997 till 2014 and thereafter, he remained absconded and accordingly, his bail bonds were forfeited on 15.10.2024 and he was summoned through arrest warrants. Looking to the fact that the criminal case is lying pending against the petitioner since 1997 and 11 years unnecessary delay has been caused by him. 8. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70 (2) Cr.P.C. is allowed with the following conditions:-

(3 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:43510]

[CRLMP-5027/2025]

i. The petitioner would pay cost of Rs.25,000/- with the Trial Court and the same would be utilized in the interest of poor needy litigants under the Litigants Fund.

¶27

ii. The petitioner would implant 25 shady plants in public vicinity. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of 15 days from today and he is further directed to look after these plants till final disposal of the petition.

¶28

iii. The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial Court to show that the condition No.ii imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him.

¶29

The reasons for passing this present order asking the petitioners to plant 25 shaddy plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment.

¶30

If the petitioner complies with the aforesaid condition within the above stipulated time and submits a proof in this regard before the trial Court with the undertaking that he would take care of the plants till conclusion of the trial, the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner be converted into bailable warrants.

¶31

It is made clear that in case, petitioner fails to comply with either of the condition, then the order dated 21.06.2024 would

[2025:RJ-JP:43510]

[CRLMP-5027/2025]

(4 of 4)

come into picture automatically and he would be summoned through arrest warrants.

¶36

Looking to the fact that the trial is pending since 1997, it is expected from the trial Court to make all possible endeavours to conclude that trial expeditiously as early as possible.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation, this criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶38

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶39

Aayush Sharma /14

Sukhwant Singh Son of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sukhwant Singh Son of Shri Mukhtyar Singh, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raja Ram Agarwal S/O Shri Girdhari Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Babulal Yogi S/O Shri Ram Nath Yogi, Vs State of Rajasthan

Shubham Sharma S/O Shri Arun Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Chandrakala Daughter of Shri Radheyshyam Kushwah, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Singh S/O Shri Bahadur Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Pansari Son of Shri Vimal Chand Jain, Vs State of Rajasthan