IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Goverdhan Bardhar, J.
Vijesh Kumar @ Vijay Purohit - Appellant
Versus
State, Through P P - Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 756 of 2020
Decided on : 04-08-2021
Arrest Warrant - Criminal Law - The court modified a non-bailable warrant into a bailable warrant based on the legal principle that in normal circumstances, either summons or bailable warrant should be issued at the first instance, and non-bailable warrant should only be issued if the accused does not respond to the bailable warrant.
Fact of the Case:
The trial court had issued a non-bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner for offences under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4, 5(i)/6 of POCSO Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court, after considering the impugned order and legal precedents, exercised its revisional jurisdiction and modified the non-bailable warrant into a bailable warrant.
Issues: The issue was whether the non-bailable warrant issued by the trial court should be modified to a bailable warrant for the accused-petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the legal principle that in normal circumstances, either summons or bailable warrant should be issued at the first instance, and non-bailable warrant should only be issued if the accused does not respond to the bailable warrant.
Final Decision: The Revision Petition was partly allowed, and the non-bailable warrant against the accused-petitioner was modified and converted into a bailable warrant.
JUDGMENT
Goverdhan Bardhar, J. - Heard.
2. The defects pointed out by the Office are waived at this stage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 07.01.2019, learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore has taken cognizance against the petitioner for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376(D) IPC and Section 3/4, 5(i)/6 of POCSO Act and ordered for issuing warrant of arrest against the accused persons.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits at the outset that he has limited prayer that issuance of arrest warrant for securing presence of the petitioner may be converted to bailable warrant while resorting to sub-sec.(2) of Sec.70 CrPC. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on judgment in the case of Vivek @ Pappu Jat & another Vs State of Rajasthan, 2018 11 CrLR 259.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to seriousness of the offence, the trial court has passed the order for summoning presence of the accused-petitioner by warrant of arrest.
6. Perused the impugned order passed by the trial court.
7. In the case of Vivek @ Pappu Jat (supra), the coordinate Bench of this Court observed as follows:
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. Vs The State of Rajasthan and Balveer Singh Vs State of Rajasthan."
8. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion and deem it proper to exercise its revisional jurisdiction in granting limited indulgence to the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is partly allowed and the order dated 07.01.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Jalore in FIR No.03/2017, to the extent of issuing nonbailable warrant against the accused-petitioner Vijesh Kumar @ Vijay Purohit s/o Amara Ram is modified and converted into bailable warrants.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.