HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2883/2018 Vikas Upadhyay S/o Yugraj, R/o 58, Hira Nagar A, Hirapura, Ajmer Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Pp. 2. Smt. Rama Devi W/o Shri Ramdayal Sharma, R/o Sheher Thana Nadoti, District Karauli, Raj. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishwajeet Mantri For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 06/04/2026 1. By way of filing the instant petition, a prayer has been made to quash the impugned FIR No. 773/2017, registered with the Police Station Kanota, District Jaipur City (East) for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406 and 120- B IPC. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not committed any offence and a false FIR with vague allegations have been levelled against him. Counsel further submits that the interim order was passed by this Court on 13.05.2019 by which the police was directed to continue the investigation but no coercive action be taken against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was under a bona fide belief that the interim order is operating in favour of the petitioner and charge-sheet would not be submitted against him and in case, any charge-sheet is submitted against him then an intimation with regard to the (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2883/2018] same would be given to him but without doing so, straightway charge-sheet has been submitted against him and the bail bonds submitted by the petitioner at the time of grant of his anticipatory bail application, has been forfeited and arrest warrant has been issued to secure the presence of the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, appropriate orders be passed. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the arguments made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. The allegations levelled against the petitioner in the impugned FIR reveal commission of a cognizable offence and the correctness of the same cannot be adjudged by this Court while exercising its inherent jurisdiction contained under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as certainly, this task has been assigned to the Investigating Officer who has already submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467,468, 471 and 120-B IPC and thereafter, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences, hence under these circumstances, this Court deems it just and proper to dispose of the instant petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to take all grounds and available defence which have been taken before this Court, at the appropriate stage of the trial before the Trial Court but looking to the facts that the bail bonds furnished by the petitioner have been forfeited on account of his absence on the fateful day when the charge-sheet was submitted. This Court is not going into the controversy whether the petitioner was informed about the submission of charge-sheet (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2883/2018] or not but looking to the fact that the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court as and when directed, this Court deems it just and proper to convert the arrest warrant into bailable warrant. In case, the petitioner appears before the Trial Court on or before 05.05.2026, the Trial Court is directed to release him on bail, after taking his personal and surety bonds, subject to its satisfaction. 6. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/31