Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 3756 (RAJ)

VIJAY JAIN S/O LATE SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMP/578/2026 · 2026-03-10

Anil Kumar Upman

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:10249] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 578/2026 1. Vijay Jain S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Partner Jain Construction Company, 761/30, Tikamganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan). 2. Ajay Jain S/o Late Shri Rajendra Kumar Jain, Partner Jain Construction Company, 761/30, Tikamganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioners Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. J.K. Cements Works, Through Sudhakar Sharma General Manager (Marketing), Registered Office At 5-A, Bhagwandas Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Suresh Kumar Sahni with Ms. Neha Sahni, Mr. Ankit Agarwal & Mr. Vaibhav Prakash For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 10/03/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are facing criminal trial in Criminal Case No.197/2024 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120B of IPC. It is submitted that on 14.07.2005, petitioners appeared before the learned trial Court and their bail bonds were accepted and petitioners were released. It is submitted that unfortunately, petitioners could not appear on [2026:RJ-JP:10249] (2 of 2) [CRLMP-578/2026] 17.03.2025 before learned trial Court due to unavoidable circumstances. Their advocates also could not file any application for their exemption. It is submitted that on account of non- appearance of the petitioners on 17.03.2025, their bail bonds were forfeited and warrants of arrest were issued to ensure their presence. Learned counsel contends that proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were also initiated separately. It is contended that vide order dated 06.10.2025, standing warrants of arrest were issued against the petitioners and proceedings under Sections 82-83 Cr.P.C. were also initiated. It is contended that the petitioners, who are facing trial since 2005, are ready to appear before learned trial Court and will face the trial without seeking exemption of personal appearance from the Court. 2. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, particularly looking to the fact that petitioners have been facing trial since 2005, I deem it just and proper to dispose of this petition with direction to the petitioners to appear before learned trial Court on or before 23.03.2026 and submit their bail bonds. Petitioners shall furnish an undertaking to the effect that they will co-operate with the trial Court in completion of trial and will appear on each and every date. 3. It is made clear that since, co-accused person is absconding in the matter, trial of the petitioners may be conducted separately. 4. With the aforesaid directions, this Criminal Misc. Petition stands disposed of. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J CHARU SONI /59