[2025:RJ-JP:48799] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7706/2025 1. Smt. Anju Modi W/o Kishan Lal Modi, Aged About 80 Years, R/o Flat No. 204, Plot No. D-10, Raj Villas First, Meera Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur. 2. Paresh Thakkar S/o Ramesh Chandra, Aged About 64 Years, R/o B/1-203, Karnavati Appartment -3, Nr. Mansipark Society, Maninagar, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 3. Hitendra Kumar Jayantibhai Patel S/o Jayantibhai Patel, Aged About 54 Years, R/o A- 2/305, Galaxy Signature, Near Hetarth Party Plot, Sola, Po Sola, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 4. Praveen Kumar S/o Shyam Lal Agarwal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o E-1001, East Ebony, Nr Ami Mangal, B/h Rajpath Club, Bodakdev, Shilaj, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 5. Ravi Agarwal S/o Ashok Agarwal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 2,rivera Greens, Near Eklavya School, Sarkhej Sanad Road, Sanathal, Ahmedabad, Gujrat. 6. Sunil Kothari S/o Babu Lal Kohtari, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 18, Maharishi Dayanand Colony, Behind Adarsh Nagar, Beawar, Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Agarwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Choudhary, PP 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 03.10.2025, by which the application submitted by the [2025:RJ-JP:48799] (2 of 4) [CRLMP-7706/2025] petitioners under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C./72(2) BNSS seeking conversion of arrest warrants into bailable warrants has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are facing trail for the offences under Sections 16, 18, 22, 27 and 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge No.3, Ajmer. Counsel submits that the case was posted for final arguments on 15.09.2025, but the same could not be completed, hence the case was posted for 23.09.2025. On 23.09.2025, the petitioners submitted their desired bail bonds of Rs.10,000/- under Section 437-A Cr.P.C and the case was posted for the next date on 24.09.2025. Counsel submits that on account of the circumstances beyond the control of the petitioners, they could not appear on the said day, hence an application seeking personal exemption was submitted and time was sought by the counsel for the petitioners for remaining arguments However, the case was posted for 26.09.2025 for judgment. Counsel submits that on that day also the petitioners could not appear and their bail bonds were forfeited and they have been summoned through arrest warrants vide order dated 26.09.2025. Counsel submits that the petitioner No.1 is a super senior citizen, aged about 80 years and the age of the petitioner No.2 is 64 years and all the other petitioners were regularly appearing before the Trial Court and facing trial and even the arguments were also heard in their presence. However, on the fateful day i.e. on 26.09.2025, they could not [2025:RJ-JP:48799] (3 of 4) [CRLMP-7706/2025] appear before the Court below and their bail bonds were forfeited and they have been summoned through arrest warrants. Counsel submits that since the matter has reached to its final conclusion, there is no need to arrest them, hence under these circumstances, an application under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. was submitted seeking conversion of arrest warrants into bailable, as the petitioners are ready and willing to participate in the concluding part of the trial, hence interference of this Court is warranted. 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that on account of absence of the petitioners on the fateful day, the judgment could not be pronounced and the case has been deferred for the other day and the Trial Court has not committed any error in forfeiting their bail bonds and surety bonds. Counsel further submits that the Trial Court has not committed any error even in rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the petition is liable to be rejected. 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 petitioners and looking to the fact that the petitioners were regularly appearing before the Trial Court uptil the stage of final arguments and they could not appear on the date when the case was posted for pronouncement of the judgment and the desired bail bonds under Section 437-A [2025:RJ-JP:48799] (4 of 4) [CRLMP-7706/2025] Cr.P.C. were submitted, the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed. 6. The Trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner and the petitioners are directed to appear before the Trial Court on or before 09.12.2025. 7. In case, the petitioners submit their bail bonds and surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the Trial Court, they be released on bail. 8. It is expected from the Trial Court to make all possible endeavours to decide the pending matter expeditiously as early as possible, preferably on the next date or by fixing a short date thereafter. 9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the instant criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. The stay application and all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J KuD/222