Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Megha Ram Jat vs State Of Rajasthan on 14 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 RAJ 732
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
(1 of 3) [CRLMP-4639/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 4639/2019
Megha Ram Jat S/o Sh. Parma Ram Jat, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Ajitsar, P.s. Sardarsahar, District Churu. At Present Constable
276, Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.N.S.Birkh through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr.B.R.Vishnoi, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Order 14/12/2020 The instant misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner Megha Ram Jat seeking quashing of the order dated 25.7.2019 passed by the learned ACJM, Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara and F.I.R. No.269/2019 lodged at the Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara in pursuance of the order dated 25.7.2019 for the offence under Section 229A I.P.C.
I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by Shri Birkh and learned Public Prosecutor and have gone through the order dated 25.7.2019 on the strength whereof, the F.I.R. came to be lodged.
The petitioner who was posted as a Head Constable at the Police Station Mandalgarh, District Bhilwara was arraigned as an accused in Cr.Case No.333/2019 by the trial court for the offences under Sections 166 and 221 I.P.C. He appeared in the court of the learned ACJM, Mandalgarh on 23.7.2019 and moved an application (Downloaded on 19/12/2020 at 08:18:19 PM) (2 of 3) [CRLMP-4639/2019] for bail and the trial court directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- and a surety in the like amount. Accordingly, the petitioner furnished the bail and surety bonds and was released on bail.
The trial court fixed the next date as 25.7.2019 for reading out accusation of the offence to the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not appear before the trial court on that day and his counsel moved an application for exemption which was dismissed. The bail bonds and surety bonds submitted by the petitioner were forfeited and he was directed to be summoned through a warrant of arrest and simultaneously, a direction was given to register an F.I.R. under Section 229A I.P.C. against the petitioner. In furtherance of the said direction, the impugned F.I.R. No.269/2019 has been registered for the offence under Section 229A I.P.C. against the petitioner at the Police Station Mandalgarh, which is sought to be quashed in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Section 229A I.P.C. reads as below:
"229A. Failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in Court.--Whoever, having been charged with an offence and released on bail or on bond without sureties, fails without sufficient cause (the burden of proving which shall lie upon him), to appear in Court in accordance with the terms of the bail or bond, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Explanation.--The punishment under this section is--
(a) in addition to the punishment to which the offender would be liable on a conviction for the offence with which he has been charged; and
(b) without prejudice to the power of the Court to order forfeiture of the bond."(Downloaded on 19/12/2020 at 08:18:19 PM)
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-4639/2019] It is crystal clear on a bare reading of the provision that offence under Section 229A I.P.C. would be committed only if an accused who has been released on bail upon his furnishing only a personal bond remains absent before the trial court on the scheduled date. In case, the release of an accused on bail is by furnishing bail as well as surety bonds and such accused remains absent from the trial, the only consequence would be forfeiture of the bail bonds and issuance of warrant of arrest against him/her.
In such a situation, the offence under Section 229A I.P.C. would not be attracted.
In this background, manifestly the direction given by the trial court vide order dated 25.7.2019 to register the F.I.R. against the petitioner and so also registration of the impugned F.I.R. in compliance of such direction, cannot be considered to be justified, rather the same amounts to a gross abuse of the process of law.
Accordingly, the misc. petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The direction given by the learned Magistrate vide the impugned order dated 25.7.2019 to register the F.I.R. under Section 229A I.P.C. against the petitioner and so also the impugned F.I.R. No.269/2019 consequentially registered against the petitioner at the Police Station Mandalgarh are hereby quashed. However, the remaining part of the impugned order (regarding forfeiture of bail bonds of the petitioner and opening of proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C.) is sustained.
The stay petition is disposed of.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J /tarun goyal/ 48 (Downloaded on 19/12/2020 at 08:18:19 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)