[2025:RJ-JP:6122] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 10832/2022 1. Joitun W/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. 2. Ruksana D/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. 3. Rais S/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. 4. Aarif S/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. 5. Rashima D/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. 6. Aasma D/o Late Mangya, R/o Village Makholi, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur. ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tarun Jain For State : Mr. Amit Punia, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/02/2025 1. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that petitioners are ready to deposit the amount of surety forfeited on account of non-appearance/absconding of the accused-Abbas and the land of petitioners confiscated, may be released. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on an order for release on bail to accused-Abbas by the High Court in Criminal Bail Application No.1010/2010 dated 07.10.2010, two sureties of [2025:RJ-JP:6122] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-10832/2022] Rs.25,000/- each and bail bond of Rs.50,000/- was submitted. One of the sureties was submitted by Mangya, the father of petitioners. 3. Because of non-appearance of the accused-Abbas, the bail bonds and sureties were forfeited vide order dated 13.06.2011 and proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were ordered to be initiated against the persons who gave surety. 4. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that father of the petitioners named Mangya, who gave the sureties of Rs.50,000/- for release of the accused-Abbas on bail, died only after three months of giving sureties and this fact was not in the knowledge of the petitioners that his father has given sureties as regards the accused-Abbas, otherwise, he would have already deposited the amount of sureties on non-appearance of the accused-Abbas. Counsel further submits that the land in question is the only bread earning of the petitioner and his family. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner. 6. Heard. 7. Considered the submissions made at bar and also perused the material available on record. 8. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly the fact that petitioner is ready to deposit Rs.25,000/-, this Court deems it just and proper to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of this Court vested in Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, as the petition was filed prior to 01.07.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:6122] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-10832/2022] 9. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 10. In case, the petitioners deposits the sum of Rs.25,000/- before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sawaimadhopur within a period of two weeks and on submitting proof thereof, the concerned Revenue Officer shall release the land in question to the petitioners and shall also muted the land in favour of the petitioner without any undue delay. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J AMIT/70