Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 2248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
P.K. Lohra, J.
SHYAM LAL VAISHNAV - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1044 of 2017
Decided On : 11-05-2017
For the Appellant :Mr. Sunil Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. V.S. Rajpurohit, P.P.
The court has the discretion to direct the trial court to accept bail bonds for an accused who has been summoned for securing attendance in a case.
Headnote:
Bail - Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - The court directed the trial court to accept the bail bonds for the accused-petitioner, who was summoned for securing his attendance in a case related to offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed against the petitioner for offences under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The trial court took cognizance and issued summons for securing the petitioner's attendance.
Finding of the Court:
The court directed the trial court to accept the bail bonds for the petitioner, as he had been summoned for securing his attendance.
Issues: The issue was whether the trial court should accept the bail bonds for the petitioner, who had been summoned for securing his attendance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the fact that the petitioner had been summoned for securing his attendance and directed the trial court to accept the bail bonds accordingly.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the trial court to accept the bail bonds for the petitioner.
P.K. Lohra, J.
Instant Criminal Misc. Petition is filed by accused-petitioner with the prayer to quash entire proceedings in Criminal Original Case No.492/2014, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaur (for short, 'learned trial Court').
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to this petition are that a complaint is filed against petitioner before learned trial Court for offence under Sections 16(1)(a), 17(c), 17-B(d), 17-B(e), 18(a) (i), 18(a)(vi), 18(c), 18-(A), 18-B, 22(1) (cca) read with Section 65(5), 27(a), 27(d), 28, 28-A & 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Learned trial Court took cognizance against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 27(a), 27(d), 28, 28-A and 22(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and issued summons for securing his attendance.
3. While arguing the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has abandoned the prayer for quashment of proceedings and sought limited indulgence of the Court that in case petitioner appears before the learned trial Court then learned trial Court may be directed to accept his bail bonds for releasing him on bail. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in case of Anil Sogani & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan : 2013 (1) Cr.L.R. (Raj.) 455.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has made a feeble attempt to oppose the limited prayer of petitioner.
5. There remains no quarrel that after taking cognizance against petitioner, learned trial Court issued summons for securing his attendance and therefore, it is apparently clear that learned trial Court is trying the case as a summons case.
6. Therefore, taking into account the fact that petitioner has been summoned by learned trial Court for securing his attendance, learned trial Court may accept bail bonds to be submitted on behalf of petitioner for releasing him on bail on the ensuing date of hearing.
7. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
