HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 6132/2025 Deendayal S/o Shri Charanlal, R/o Khanua, P.S. Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p. 2. Bachchan Sing S/o Shri Hari Singh., R/o Jindpura, P.s. Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) 3. Randheer S/o Shri Laxman, R/o Jindpura, P.s. Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal with Ms. Morvi Jangid and Mr. Jaswant Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Punia, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 03/11/2025 1. By way of filing this petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Cases, Bharatpur in the Criminal Case No.54/2022 by which opportunity of the petitioner to lead evidence has been closed. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits the petitioner lodged FIR No.88/2022 with the Police Station Roopwas, District Bharatpur for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 354(B), 504 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Counsel submits that after investigation, the Police has submitted final report negative against which, a (2 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2025] protest petition was filed before the Court below. Counsel submits that the Presiding Officer remained on leave on several date, thereafter vide order dated 06.12.2024, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lead evidence on the next date i.e. on 25.02.2025 and on that day, the petitioner was present in the Court, but the Presiding Officer was on leave, hence case was posted for the next date i.e. 22.05.2025. On 22.05.2025 the petitioner could not appear before the Court below and the case was posted for the next date i.e. 05.08.2025 and on that day, the petitioner could not appear, hence his opportunity of leading the evidence has been closed and the case has been posted for final arguments. Counsel submits that unless and until, the petitioner leads evidence in support of his protest petition, adverse order would be passed against him, hence, a last opportunity be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence before the Court below. 3. Per contra, Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that the final report negative was submitted way back in the month of December, 2022. He submits that since December, 2022 till 05.08.2025, several opportunities were granted to the petitioner to lead the evidence, but in-spite of availing several opportunities, no evidence was lead by him till 05.08.2025, hence, under these circumstances, the Court below has not committed an error in closing the opportunity of the petitioner to lead evidence, hence interference of this Court is not warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on the record. (3 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2025] 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the FIR lodged by the petitioner was resulted in final report negative. The petitioner appeared in person before the Court below on 21.12.2022 and sought time to file the protest petition. Finally the protest petition was filed on 12.01.2024. Perusal of the subsequent order-sheets reveal that this fact was overlooked by the Court below and the case was posted from one date to other granting time to the petitioner to file the protest petition, but on 06.12.2024 it was realized by the Court below that the protest petition was already filed, hence, the case was posted for the next date i.e., 22.02.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to lead his evidence. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no fault of the petitioner to lead his evidence till 25.02.2025 as on that day, he was present in the Court, but the evidence was not recorded on the said date, since the Presiding Officer was on leave, thereafter two dates were given to lead his evidence, but he could not appear, hence, his evidence was closed. 7. It is settled proposition of law that for conducting fair trial, adequate opportunity should be granted to the party to lead evidence. 8. Considering the above, the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 stands quashed and set-aside with the following condition: i. Looking to the lethargic attitude of the petitioner, he would plant 11 saplings/plants of the shaded trees in public vicinity area within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order and would submit proof with (4 of 4) [CRLMP-6132/2025] photographs thereof for the satisfaction of the Trial Court that the condition No.i put by this Court has been duly complied with by the petitioner. The petitioner shall also give an undertaking that he will look after all the trees planted by him, till final disposal of the application pending against him. 9. The reasons for passing the present order asking the petitioner to plant 11 saplings/plants is in the interest of public at large and for the greater public good. Planting trees is considered as an appropriate initiative as it will provide numerous benefits to the city and the surrounding community for decades and centuries. Future generations will get benefit from cleaner, fresh oxygen-rich environment. 10. If the aforesaid condition is complied with by the petitioner within the above stipulated time, last opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to lead his evidence before the Trial Court on the next date and the Trial Court will proceed in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that in case, the petitioner fails to comply with the above-said conditions, no further opportunity would be granted. 12. 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/20