[2025:RJ-JP:1235] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 899/2018 Bhagwan Sahay S/o Tundal Ram Meena B/c Meena, R/o Mohchakapura, Tehsil Vazeerpur, District Sawaimadhopur, Presently Posted At Rajgarh, District Churu, Raj. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan Through Pp. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jai Prakash Tiwari, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 08/01/2025 1. This revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against impugned Order dated 21.04.2018 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in Criminal Misc. Case No. 391/2003, whereby application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. filed by the accused-petitioner for converting warrant of arrest into bailable warrant, was dismissed. 2. The facts in short are that on the basis of a complaint filed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, before the Judicial Magistrate, Karauli, cognizance of offences under Sections 166, 176, 420 & 193 of I.P.C. was taken against the petitioner, the then S.H.O. Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli and he was summoned through bailable warrant in the sum of Rs. 5,000/-. But in spite of service, accused-petitioner failed to appear before the trial court, hence, warrant of arrest was issued against him on [2025:RJ-JP:1235] (2 of 4) [CRLR-899/2018] 29.10.2015. The accused-petitioner thereafter moved an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. seeking to convert warrant of arrest issued against him into bailable warrant. After hearing arguments, the trial court vide Order dated 21.04.2018 rejected said application. Aggrieved, this revision petition has been filed before this Court. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no bailable warrant issued by the trial court was served upon the petitioner, therefore, he was not aware about proceedings pending against him before the trial court and nor could appear before the trial court. He further submits that trial court merely on the basis of a radiogram message, treated service of bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner and issued arrest warrant against him. He, therefore prays that this revision petition may be allowed and order impugned passed by the trial court may be set aside and the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner may be converted into bailable warrant. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon procedure for service of summons contained in Chapter VI of the Cr.P.C. He has also relied upon the decision of this Court in Kaluwa vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2015 8 RCR (Cri) 532. 6. Learned counsel for the State, however, vehemently opposed revision petition and submitted that the petitioner in spite of information did not choose to appear before the trial court, [2025:RJ-JP:1235] (3 of 4) [CRLR-899/2018] therefore, no error has been committed by the trial court in passing the order impugned. 7. I have considered rival arguments and gone through record of the trial court and precedent law on the issue. 8. A perusal of the record reveals that on 01.05.2003, the trial court while taking cognizance of alleged offences against the petitioner, summoned him through bailable warrant to be served through S.P. Karauli. A perusal of the order-sheet dated 07.09.2015 reveals that in spite of service of bailable warrant, accused-petitioner did not appear before the trial court, however, a radiogram message was received informing that he was busy in government duty, therefore, could not remain present before the Court, which establishes that accused-petitioner was informed about proceedings pending against him before the trial court but still, he did not choose to appear before the trial court and remained absent. The accused-petitioner is a police officer and it was expected from him to obey the court's orders but being a police officer, he repeatedly disobeyed the court's order. The cognizance of offences was taken against him in 2003 and matter remained pending for presence of the accused for a long period which has resulted in delaying trial proceedings. Therefore, this Court does not find any irregularity or infirmity in the order impugned passed by the trial court. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner turn on its own facts and does not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the revision petition. [2025:RJ-JP:1235] (4 of 4) [CRLR-899/2018] 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed and the order impugned passed by the trial court is affirmed. 10. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case, the petitioner surrenders before the trial court within a period of ten days from today and files an application for regular bail, the trial court shall consider and decide such bail application in accordance with law preferably on the same day. 11. The stay application also stands disposed of. 12. It is made clear that observations made by this Court shall not have any bearing on the adjudication of bail application of the petitioner on merits. 13. The original record of the trial court be sent back forthwith. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J INDER /22