Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 11985 (RAJ)

SALIM SON OF SHRI GAFOOR TAJIYAWALA, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/3028/2026 · 2026-08-05

Anil Kumar Upman

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:30627] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 3028/2026 CNR: RJHC020452012026 | URN: CRLMP / 6882U / 2026 1. Salim Son Of Shri Gafoor Tajiyawala, Resident Of Kharda Mohalla, Police Station Sambharlake, District Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Salam @ Kalu Son Of Shri Gafoor Tajiyawala, Resident Of Kharda Mohalla, Police Station Sambharlake, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Accused-Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent 2. Gulam Mohd. Son Of Shri Amir Khan, Resident Of Naksha Mohalla, Near Old Cinema, Police Station Sambharlake, District Jaipur (Raj.). ----Complainant/Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. M.S. Choudhary, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 05/08/2026 1. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the petitioners through this petition have assailed the order of cognizance dated 02.08.2022, they are ready to face the trial and will raise all grounds as available in this petition before learned Magistrate at the stage of consideration of charge. 2. Counsel submits that after investigation, police submitted negative final report before the learned Magistrate and being aggrieved thereof, complainant filed a protest petition on which [2026:RJ-JP:30627] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-3028/2026] learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 436 and 447 of IPC and thereafter, process was issued against the petitioners and they have been summoned through bailable warrant. 3. Counsel submits that since offence punishable under Section 436 of IPC is exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, there is apprehension that in the event of appearance before the learned Magistrate, the petitioners may be sent to judicial custody in pursuance of bailable warrant issued against them. 4. In view of above, this petition is dismissed to the extent of challenging the order of cognizance dated 02.08.2022. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the petitioners to appear before the learned Magistrate on or before 25.08.2026 and submit their bail bonds in pursuance of bailable warrant to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate. On submission of the bail bonds, learned Magistrate is directed to accept the same. 5. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 6. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J 65/MADAN