HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 2425/2025 1. Khemraj Son Of Gopal, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Staton Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. 2. Gopal Son Of Ramnaryan, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Staton Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. 3. Rameshwar Son Of Ramnaryan, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Staton Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. 4. Ramkanya Wife Of Gopal, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Staton Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. 5. Moti Son Of Ramnaryan, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Staton Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Girdhari Lal Son Of Late Sundaram Balai, Resident Of Sukhiya Mohanpura, Police Station Sanganer, Presently Police Station Muhana, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Order 28/04/2025 1. The instant SB criminal misc. petition is preferred under Section 528 of BNSS for quashing the criminal proceedings in case No. 3357/2011 State Vs. Khemraj and Ors., pending before the (2 of 4) [CRLMP-2425/2025] Metropolitan Magistrate No. 26, Jaipur Metropolitan First, Sanganer. 2. It is contended that the FIR was lodged in the police station Sanganer, Sadar District Jaipur City in the year 1998 for the offences under Sections 341 of the IPC read with Sections 3(i)(x) (xiv) of SC/ST Act, thereafter final negative report was submitted before the court concerned. It is argued that vide order dated 07.07.2011, the petitioners were called through arrest warrants and cognizance was taken against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 427 and 336 of IPC read with Sections 3(i)(x)(xiv) of SC/ST Act. It is vehementally argued that the petitioners were not aware that they were called through arrest warrants. It is further argued that impugned order dated 07.07.2011, passed by learned trial court is perverse, contrary to law and against the principle of governing the issuance of warrants. In the instant case trial court did not give any cogent reason regarding issuance of arrest warrants against the petitioners. It is also contended that the purpose of issuance of summons or bailable warrants is only to secure the presence of the petitioners in the trial court and in terms of Sections 87 and 88 of Cr.P.C. arrest warrants can only be issued when the court is satisfied that issuance of summons will not serve the purpose, however learned trial court without assigning any reasons directly issued the arrest warrants against the petitioners. The issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioners at the first instance is illegal and contrary to the settled law. In support of the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of (3 of 4) [CRLMP-2425/2025] Vikas Vs. State of Rajasthan (2014) 3 SCC 321 and Vs. Satendra Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau Of Investigation & Anr. (2022) 10 SCC 51. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State opposed the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioners and justified the order of calling the petitioners through arrest warrants vide order dated 07.07.2011. 4. Heard and perused the material available on the record. 5. It is well settled law that when a person who is arrayed as an accused, or when cognizance is taken against the accused at the very first instance, the court should secure the accused’s personal appearance through summons or bailable warrants. The concerned court may ensure the presence of the accused by issuing summons or bailable warrants. The court ought not to have directly called the petitioners through non-bailable warrants. 6. The learned trial court has called the petitioners through arrest warrants without assigning any cogent reasons, for the offences alleged against the petitioners. The offences under Sections 341, 323 of IPC are bailable offences though the offence under Sections 3(i)(x)(xiv) of SC/ST Act are not bailable offences, however considering the fact that at the first instance after thorough investigation police did not find commission of offence by the present petitioners and petitioners were later on called through arrest warrants after accepting the protest petition filed by the complainant. 7. Therefore, the order of calling the petitioners directly through non-bailable warrant is set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the concerned court on 08.05.2025. If (4 of 4) [CRLMP-2425/2025] the petitioners fails to comply with the order then the concerned court shall be free to ensure the presence of the petitioners by passing the appropriate order. 8. Accordingly, instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. (PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J ashu /17