[2025:RJ-JP:48656] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.7338/2024 Mumtaj Ali S/o Late Abdul Gani, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Near Jamat Khana, Vyapariyon Ka Mohalla, Kuchamancity, District Nagaur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India, Through Special P.P. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Lakhwani Mr. Wilson Joy For Respondent(s) : Mr. Banwari Lal Takhar Mr. Prithvi Singh Deora JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 01/12/2025 1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 24.09.2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan II by which revision petition submitted by the petitioner under Section 397 Cr.P.C. has been rejected and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offence) Jaipur Metropolitan-II by which an application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint under Section 132 & 135 of the Customs Excise Act, 1962 (for short “the Act of 1962”) was submitted against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was granted bail. Learned counsel submits [2025:RJ-JP:48656] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7338/2024] that when cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 12.01.2017, he did not appear before the Court below. Therefore, his bail bonds were forfeited and he was summoned through arrest warrants and on 11.04.2022, he was declared as an absconder and thereafter, proceedings were initiated against him for procuring his presence. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a poor person and on account of financial crisis, he went abroad to earn his livelihood and in the year 2020, due to COVID-19 Pandemic, he could not mark his presence before the trial court and proceedings were initiated against him. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to participate in the proceedings pending against him and he is ready to furnish an undertaking that he will appear before the Court below as and when called upon. Hence, arrest warrants issued against him be converted into bailable warrants. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that on 12.01.2017, on account of absence of the petitioner, his bail bonds were forfeited and thereafter no effort was made by the petitioner for marking his presence. Therefore, under these circumstances, no option was available with the Court below but to issue standing warrants against him and thereafter declare him as an absconder on 11.04.2022. Learned counsel submits that on account of absence of the petitioner, the trial has been hampered for a long period. Hence, under these circumstances, the relief sought for should not be granted to the petitioner and the instant misc. petition is liable to be rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:48656] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7338/2024] 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Considering the arguments put forward by learned counsel for the petitioner and looking to the fact that bail has already been granted to the petitioner in the year 2014 itself and he failed to appear before the Court below on 12.01.2017. Hence, under these circumstances, his bail bonds were forfeited. This Court is not satisfied with the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that on account of the petitioner’s financial crisis, he went abroad to earn his livelihood and due to COVID 19 Pandemic, he could not appear before the Trial Court. 6. Because of the absence of the petitioner, the trial has been unnecessarily hampered for a considerable time, but looking to the fact that the petitioner is now ready and willing to appear before the Court below as and when directed. 7. Considering the nature of allegations and overall facts and circumstances of the case, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of with the following terms and conditions:- (I) The petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.11,000/- with the Litigants Welfare Fund before the trial court within a period of 15 days from today, which would be utilised by the Trial court for the purpose of poor and needy litigants. (II) The petitioner would plant 25 shady plants in their vicinity in public area. The aforesaid process would be carried over by him within a period of two weeks from today and he is further directed to look after these plants. [2025:RJ-JP:48656] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7338/2024] (III) The petitioner would submit the photographs of these plants before the trial court to show that the condition No.II imposed by this Court has been duly complied by him. (IV) The petitioner would give an undertaking before the Court below that he will not misuse the liberty in the future and would appear before the Court below as and when required. 8. The reasons for passing this present order directing the petitioner to plant 25 plants is in the interest of the public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees as directed above, is one such initiative, which this Court considers to be appropriate, as trees, for as long as they thrive whether for decades or centuries will continuously and silently offer numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community. Future generations will benefit from a cleaner, fresh and oxygen-rich environment. 9. In case, the petitioner complies with the aforesaid conditions within the above stipulated time, the Trial Court would withdraw the order of arrest warrants issued against him and release him on bail after taking his personal bond and sureties to its satisfaction. 10. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/18