Disposed¶27

Jasvindra @ Kalu Son of Raju @ Raggu @ Raguveer, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Mar 2026CRLMP/502/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Cognizance under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC; arrest warrant recalled and converted to bailable warrant; negative final report after thorough police investigation; no specific overt-act assigned; ACJM Sikri District Deeg order dated 19.06.2025; revision rejected 15.01.2026 by ADJ Nagar District Deeg; appearance/bail deadline 27.03.2026; Jasvindra @ Kalu v. State of Rajasthan and Santram (complainant); Rajasthan High Court Jaipur; Justice Anil Kumar Upman; petition disposed of, merits of cognizance not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to recall the arrest warrant and summon the petitioner through bailable warrant; release on bail upon appearance on or before 27.03.2026 subject to personal and surety bonds; stay application and pending applications disposed of. ¶27

Jasvindra @ Kalu Son of Raju @ Raggu @… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikri, District Deeg, taking cognizance against the petitioner under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and summoning him through arrest warrant, was sustainable (challenge not pressed on merits). +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner did not press the petition on merits and confined his prayer to conversion of the arrest warrant, and since police investigation yielded a negative final report with no involvement found and no specific overt-act assigned to the petitioner, the Trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner and summon him through bailable warrant.

¶26

Key takeaways

In case the petitioner appears before the Trial Court on or before 27.03.2026, he be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 502/2026 (Anil Kumar Upman, J., order dated 10/03/2026): The petitioner, against whom cognizance had been taken under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and who had been summoned through arrest warrant by order dated 19.06.2025 of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikri, District Deeg — a revision against which was rejected on 15.01.2026 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagar — did not press the petition on merits and sought only conversion of the arrest warrant into a bailable warrant. Noting that police investigation had resulted in a negative final report, that the petitioner's involvement had not been found and that no specific overt-act had been assigned to him, the Court directed the Trial Court to recall the arrest warrant and summon the petitioner through bailable warrant, further directing that on appearance on or before 27.03.2026 he be released on bail subject to personal and surety bonds. The Criminal Misc. Petition, the stay application and all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶1

[2026:RJ-JP:10242]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 502/2026

¶4

Jasvindra @ Kalu Son Of Raju @ Raggu @ Raguveer, R/o Hayatpur, Police Station Sikri Presently Residing At Govindgarh, Police Station Govindgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.

¶8

Santram Son Of Dhansingh, R/o Dhadoli Khurd, Police Station Firozpur, Jhirka, District Nuh, Mewat, Haryana.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Ravindra Kumar Mr. Kapil Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with
	Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP
	Mr. Abhishek Garg,for complainant

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

10/03/2026

¶14

By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikri, District Deeg, by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and he has been summoned through arrest warrant.

¶15

Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the Revisional Court i.e. learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nagar, District Deeg by way of filing a revision petition, however, the same was also rejected vide order dated 15.01.2026 and the order passed by the learned Magistrate has been upheld.

[2026:RJ-JP:10242]

[CRLMP-502/2026]

(2 of 3)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after thorough investigation in the matter, police has submitted negative final report, but the reasons assigned in the final report have not been considered and on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, now the cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences.

¶20

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this petition on merits and he has made a prayer for converting the arrest warrant into bailable warrant.

¶21

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as counsel for the complainant-respondent opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that a prima facie case is made out against all the accused persons as per the evidence and documents available on the record, hence the Court below has not committed any error not only in taking cognizance against the petitioner for the above stated offences, but also by summoning him through arrest warrant, hence interference of this Court is not warranted.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at bar and perused the material available on the record. 7. Considering the fact that the petitioner has not pressed this petition on merits, but has confined his prayer to the extent of converting arrest warrant into bailable warrant and looking to the fact that after thorough investigation in the matter, the police has not found involvement of the petitioner and submitted negative final report and no specific overt-act has been assigned to the petitioner and considering the overall facts and circumstances of

[2026:RJ-JP:10242]

[CRLMP-502/2026]

(3 of 3)

the case, the Trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrant issued against the petitioner and summon him through bailable warrant.

¶27

In case, the petitioner appears before the Trial Court on or before 27.03.2026, he be released on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant Criminal Misc. Petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

CHARU SONI /57

Jasvindra @ Kalu Son of Raju @ Raggu @ Raguveer, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasvindra @ Kalu Son of Raju @ Raggu @ Raguveer, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vikram Alias Vicky S/O Shri Gulab Chand Meena, Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Kumar S/O Shri Banwari Lal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Monu Tourist Service Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan

Ghasi Nayak Son of Dhanna Nayak, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohanlal Gurjar Son of Shri Ramdhan, Vs State of Rajasthan

Jamuna Sarkar D/O Shri Motilal Sarkar Vs State of Rajasthan