HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 227/2025 Leelu @ Brijmohan Son Of Shri Jawan Singh, Resident Of Pali, Dholi, District Mahendragarh (Haryana). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. JS Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/01/2025 1. By way of filing of this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 16.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Jaipur Metropolitan-I by which the application filed by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting arrest warrants into bailable has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not aware about issuance of arrest warrants against him, as he is a labour class, residing in village Pali, District Mahendragarh, Haryana, hence, he could not appear before the Trial Court. Counsel submits that now, the petitioner got information about pendency of criminal case in FIR No.16/2008 registered against him for the offence under Sections 399 & 402 IPC and Section 4/25 of the Arms Act with Police Station Sadar, Jaipur City. Counsel submits that (2 of 3) [CRLMP-227/2025] the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court and participate in the trial, therefore, appropriate orders be passed in favour of the petitioner. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the prayer and submits that charge-sheet was submitted against the petitioner for the above offences way back in the year 2008 and the petitioner was granted bail and he appeared before the Trial Court till 22.04.2013, but on that day, he did not appear, hence, bail bonds were forfeited and finally he was declared absconder and his arrest warrants were issued vide order dated 15.10.2015. Counsel submits that the petitioner is absconding since last more than 11 years, hence, under these circumstances, the Trial Court has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for parties and looking to the fact that the petitioner remained absent in the year 2013, that is why, he was declared as absconder and his arrest warrants issued in the year 2015, it cannot be believed that the petitioner was not aware about pendency of the criminal case against him before the Trial Court as the petitioner was appearing before the Trial Court from 2008 to 2013. There may be reasons of the absence of the petitioner, but because of his absence, the (3 of 3) [CRLMP-227/2025] proceedings before the Trial Court remained hampered for a considerable time i.e. 11 years. Now the petitioner is ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court and participate in the proceedings. 6. The instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of with directions to the petitioner to deposit a cost of Rs.11,000/- with the Trial Court, within a period of seven days from today. In case, the petitioner deposits the aforesaid amount with the Trial Court, he shall be released on bail after taking personal and surety bonds with an undertaking that he will not misuse the liberty in future. 7. The Trial Court is directed to deposit the aforesaid cost amount in the Litigants Welfare Fund and the same be utilized in welfare of the litigants. 8. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand dispose of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/49