Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalu Singh vs State on 6 September, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2961 / 2017
Kalu Singh S/o Aasu Singh, By Caste Rajput, Resident of Ranveer
Bhawan, Chopasani Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Agarwal.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit PP for the State.
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 06/09/2017
1. The petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (C.B.I. Cases), Jodhpur, by which the standing warrants were issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.15/2012 of Police Station, Sursagar, District Jodhpur for offences under Sections 143, 448, 427, 323, 379 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Nagendra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (Criminal misc. Petition No. 2237/2017) decided on 19.07.2017.
3. This Court on 19.07.2017 has passed the following order in Nagendra Singh Vs. State (Supra):-
"1. Petitioner has preferred this misc. petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 06.07.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City, District Nagaur in case No.215/2014 by (2 of 3) [CRLMP-2961/2017] which the standing warrants were issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in FIR No.88/2012 of Police Station, Kuchaman, District Nagaur for offences under Sections 379, 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC.
2. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out from order dated 06.07.2017 that the learned court below has initiated the proceedings under Sections 446 along with Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. As per counsel for the petitioner, the learned court below shall be proceeding under the aforementioned sections after taking the due course of law but before that the standing arrest warrant has been issued against him vide the same order.
3. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that his anticipatory bail application was also accepted by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.36/2014 and thereafter once he was released on bail, the petitioner had no occasion to be arrested at the time of charge- sheet and hence, could not appear before the learned court below.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the prayer saying that due process of Sections 82 and 83 of Cr.P.C. is being followed and such persons who are absconding for last three years need to be dealt with strictly.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below always had ample powers to initiate the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. but such proceedings have been sought to be (3 of 3) [CRLMP-2961/2017] initiated vide order dated 06.07.2017 by a separate proceedings, calling the petitioner by standing arrest warrant would not be appropriate. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to convert the standing arrest warrant into bailable warrants strictly in terms of the precedent law of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC, 251. It is expected that the petitioner shall co-operate with the trial henceforth."
4. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned court below always had ample powers to initiate the proceedings under Sections 82 & 83 of Cr.P.C. but such proceedings have been sought to be initiated vide order dated 20.02.2015 by a separate proceedings, calling the petitioner by standing arrest warrant would not be appropriate. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case, in the interest of justice, this Court deems it appropriate to convert the standing arrest warrant into bailable warrants strictly in terms of the precedent law of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC, 251. It is expected that the petitioner shall be appear before the learned court below on or before 18.09.2017.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. ck