The court has inherent jurisdiction to convert a non-bailable warrant into a bailable warrant, and in normal circumstances, summons or a bailable warrant should be issued at the first instance.

Mr. P.K. Lohra, J.

1. Accused-petitioners have laid this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to assail impugned order dated 19.07.2016, passed by Judicial Magistrate, Rajgarh (for short, 'learned trial Court') in Criminal Case No.102/2016 (F.R. No.26/2014).

2. By the order impugned, learned trial Court declined to accept negative final report submitted by investigating agency and proceeded to take cognizance against the petitioners for offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 342 and 302/34 (2 of 4) [CRLMP-3733/2016] IPC. After passing the order of cognizance, the learned trial Court has issued non bailable warrant against the accused- petitioners for securing their attendance before the Court. The order of cognizance was thereafter assailed by the petitioners by filing revision petition before the learned revisional Court but that effort of petitioners proved abortive and the learned revisional Court dismissed the revision petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the outset, submits that he is craving for limited indulgence of the Court that the arrest warrant issued by learned trial Court may be converted into bailable warrant by resorting to sub-section (2) of Section 70 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel would contend that the cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court after rejecting the negative final report and therefore it was desirable that at the first instance learned trial Court ought to have issued summons or bailable warrant. In support of his contentions, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. v. State of Uttranchal & Ors. [AIR 2008 SC 251].

4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer and submits that looking to the seriousness of offence, no interference with the order passed by the learned trial Court is warranted to the extent accused-petitioners are summoned by arrest warrant.

5. I have heard learned counsel as well as learned Public Prosecutor and perused the impugned order passed by learned trial Court.

6. Upon perusal of impugned order, it is abundantly clear that the investigating agency has submitted negative final report in the matter and it was only the learned trial Court which has, prima facie, noticed some incriminating evidence against the petitioners for taking cognizance and as consequence of which, it has issued process for ensuring attendance of the accused-petitioners. The legal position is no more res integra that when a Court is summoning an individual as accused, in normal circumstances, either the summons are to be issued at the first instance or bailable warrant and if the accused is not responding to bailable warrant then Court may resort to issuing non bailable warrant. Moreover, sub-section (2) of Section 70 Cr.P.C. prescribes for cancellation of non bailable warrant.

7. Supreme Court in Inder Mohan's case (supra) has considered this aspect threadbare and has opined that in normal course of events, at the first instance, Court is not expected to issue arrest warrant. The said view is also subsequently followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Israk & Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan and Balveer Singh v. State of Rajasthan.

8. In this view of the matter, I feel inclined to exercise inherent jurisdiction in the matter for granting limited indulgence to the petitioners.

Accordingly this misc. petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned trial Court issuing non bailable warrant against the petitioners is annulled and the same is converted into bailable warrant.