[2025:RJ-JP:48322] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7238/2025 Mrs. Tinu Sogarwal W/o Shri Manoj Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sewar, Police Station Sewar, District Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda with Mr. Abhishek Dewanda, Mr. Rahul Singh and Mr. Asharam Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP Mr. Devi Singh, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 27/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.08.2025, by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected and her prayer for conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that upon a complaint submitted by the complainant, cognizance was taken against the petitioner under Sections 166, 201, 323, 341, 382, 392, 427, 448, 504 and 506 IPC was taken on 28.03.2024 and straightaway the petitioner has been summoned through arrest warrants. Counsel submits that as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami and Another vs. State of Uttaranchal [2025:RJ-JP:48322] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7238/2025] and Others reported in 2007 (12) SCC 1, direct non- bailable warrants should not be issued and the accused should be summoned first through summons or bailable warrants and if this fact comes on the record that the accused is avoiding service of summons or bailable warrants initially, then under that circumstance, he can be summoned through arrest warrants. He further submits that neither summons/notice nor bailable warrants were issued and straightaway arrest warrants have been issued to procure the appearance of the petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner is pregnant and she is carrying 32 weeks pregnancy and she is a Government servant, Sub-Inspector of Police, a law abiding citizen. Considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner be converted into bailable warrants. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer. 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 cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences on 28.03.2024 and straightaway she has been summoned through arrest warrants and also considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is pregnant and is carrying 32 weeks pregnancy and she is ready and willing to appear before the [2025:RJ-JP:48322] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7238/2025] Trial Court to face the trial, hence under these circumstances, the instant petition is allowed. 6. The Trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner and summon her through bailable warrants. 7. The petitioner is directed to surrender before the Trial Court on or before 24.12.2025. 8. In case, the petitioner appears and furnishes her personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, she be released on bail. 9. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/308