Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 26671 (RAJ)

MAN SINGH S/O SHRI KISHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/4849/2025 · 2025-08-27

Sudesh Bansal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:34092] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 4849/2025 Man Singh S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o 20A, Ganeshpuri Colony, Khatipura Road, Rawal Ji Ka Bandha, Station Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sameer Dinesh Kiradiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 27/08/2025 1. Petitioner is an accused for charges under Sections 3/25 and 4/25 of the Arms Act in FIR No. 238/2001, registered at Police Station Nahargarh Road, District Jaipur, against whom charge- sheet has been filed and during course of trial, petitioner was released on bail. 2. It appears that petitioner did not turn up before the trial Court due to which his bail bonds were seized vide order dated 14.12.2018 and arrest warrant was issued so also proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were commenced. At this stage and after seven years, petitioner moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., seeking to convert his arrest warrant into bailable warrant but that application has been dismissed vide order impugned dated 23.05.2025. 3. Perusal of the record goes to show that petitioner has been a habitual defaulter in marking his presence before the Judicial Magistrate after releasing on bail. Earlier his bail bonds were [2025:RJ-JP:34092] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4849/2025] seized on 06.10.2009, again on 22.04.2010 and lastly vide dated 14.12.2018. Thus, as per conduct of petitioner, the issuance of arrest warrant by Judicial Magistrate may not be held to be an arbitrary exercise of jurisdiction and the order impugned, rejecting the application for conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant, does not warrant any interference on merits. 4. However, counsel for the petitioner has expressed financial crisis of petitioner, being a labourer as well as asserted few of his family adversarial circumstances and is agreeable to surrender the petitioner before the Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from today as also to deposit a cost of Rs.5,000/- in the government exchequer, apart from depositing the fine amount, so determined by the Judicial Magistrate in the proceedings under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. and prayer to release him on bail. 5. 5. In that view of matter, it is hereby observed that in case petitioner surrenders himself before the Judicial Magistrate within a period of 15 days from today and moves a bail application as also deposits the fine amount as determined by the trial Court under Section 446 of Cr.P.C. along with additional cost of Rs.5,000/-, his bail application may be considered by the trial Court, preferably on the same day and taking into consideration the nature of offences as well as the fact that earlier he has already been released on bail but he may put reasonable condition to ensure his presence in future. Till date of surrender, arrest warrant of petitioner shall not be executed. 6. However, it is made clear that petitioner shall cooperate with expeditious disposal and conclusion of trial of the present case, as early as possible. [2025:RJ-JP:34092] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-4849/2025] 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 8. Stay application and pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/47