[2025:RJ-JP:40562] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1577/2025 1. Jatin Son Of Shri Pradeep, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 2. Shobha Wife Of Shri Pradeep, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). 3. Maya Wife Of Shri Devdutt, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp 2. Lekhraj Son Of Shri Chandrahans, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1082/2025 1. Durga Prasad Son Of Pyare Lal, Aged About 78 Years, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 2. Jay Shankar Son Of Durga Prasad, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) 3. Raghunandan Son Of Pyare Lal, Aged About 75 Years, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p 2. Lekhraj Son Of Chandrahans, Resident Of Moroli Dang, Police Station Rudawal, District Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Rajneesh Gupta with Mr.Araif Mohammed For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudhir Jain Mr.Amit Punia, Addl.GA-cum-PP [2025:RJ-JP:40562] (2 of 4) [CRLR-1577/2025] JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 07/10/2025 1. In both these revision petitions, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 22.05.2025 passed by the Additional Session Judge No.2, Bayana Camp at Roopwas, District Bharatpur in Sessions Case No.36/2021 by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondents under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 148, 341, 323/149, 324, 324/149, 326, 326/149, 307, 307/149 & 302, 302/149 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the F.I.R. of the alleged incident was registered, the matter was thoroughly examined by the Investigating Agency and the role and involvement of the petitioners in the alleged incident was not established and the charge-sheet was filed against the co-accused persons and thereafter, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was submitted for taking cognizance against the petitioners, however, the said application submitted by the complainant was rejected and thereafter, the trial commenced and after framing of charges, statements of some material prosecution witnesses were recorded and at that stage, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was submitted which was allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the above stated offences. Counsel submits that the petitioners have been summoned through arrest warrants for ensuring their appearance before the Trial Court. [2025:RJ-JP:40562] (3 of 4) [CRLR-1577/2025] 3. Counsel submits that the petitioners does not press the petition on its merits and they are confining their prayer for conversion of the arrest warrants into bailable warrants. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dharmveer @ Sammi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. passed in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.3791/2022 dated 20.02.2024. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as the counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant opposes the prayer. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 6. Looking to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners and looking to the fact that initially the role of the petitioners was not established by the Investigating Agency and charge-sheet has been submitted against them, the charge-sheet was confined to the co-accused persons and at the relevant stage, an application under Section 190 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the complainant for taking cognizance against the petitioners, however, the same was rejected. Thereafter, the trial commenced and when the statements of the certain witnesses were recorded, this time the application submitted by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was allowed and the petitioners have been summoned through arrest warrants. 7. Looking to the fact that the petitioners have confined their prayer for conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants as the matter has not been pressed on its merits, this Court deems it just and proper to allow the petitioners to appear before the trial [2025:RJ-JP:40562] (4 of 4) [CRLR-1577/2025] Court within a period of two weeks from today subject to them furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court with the stipulation that they will undertake to cooperate with the trial in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Dharmveer @ Sammi (supra). 8. Accordingly, both the revision petitions stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /17-18