A plea of alibi is a matter of defence to be established during the trial and cannot be adjudicated to prevent the issuance of a summons to an additional accused under Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code, where a strong prima facie case of involvement exists.

ORDER :

ANOOP KUMAR DHAND, J.

Reportable

For convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

Prelude:-

1. The instant misc. petition is listed before this Court in pursuance of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 773/2026, decided on 15.01.2026), wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that in various matters, interim orders have been passed in criminal revision petitions and petitions filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., as a result of which trial relating to serious offences such as murder, rape, dacoity, dowry death, etc., could not proceed and remained stalled/held up due to the passage of considerable time.

2. Directions have been issued to this Court and other High Courts to take up such like matters which are pending since long, on priority and decide the same expeditiously without deferring the hearings to subsequent dates.

The Challenge:-

3. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 15.01.2019, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Ajmer in Sessions Case No. 07/2018 (CIS No.27/2017), by which the application submitted by the complainant-respondent under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has been allowed and cognizance has been taken against the petitioners for the offence under Section 147, 148, 323/149, 325/149, 302/149, 307/149 & 120B of the IPC.

Arguments by the petitioner:-

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that during pendency of the instant misc. petition, the petitioner No. 1 Vikram Sharma has passed away, hence, instant misc. petition stands abated qua petitioner No. 1.

5. Counsel further submits that the alleged incident occurred on 10.11.2016 between 9-10 p.m. at an indoor stadium, where the Police arrived immediately after occurrence of the offence. The impugned FIR was registered on the next date by the wife of the deceased, wherein, the petitioners along with other co-accused persons have been implicated as accused.

6. Counsel further submits that after conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted only against the co- accused persons and the same was kept pending against the petitioners under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and later on, the petitioners were also arrested.

7. Counsel further submits that thereafter, investigation was handed over to the CID(CB) and after thorough investigation of the matter, from all four corners, by the CID(CB), it was found that the petitioners were not present at the place of occurrence rather the petitioner No. 1 was 5 kms away from the place of occurrence and the petitioner No. 2 was in Pushkar which is 15 kms away from the place of occurrence. Counsel submits that evidence was collected with regard to the plea of alibi of the petitioners and considering such evidence, an application under Section 169 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the CID(CB) in favour of the petitioners for passing appropriate orders for their release. Counsel submits that the said application was allowed and appropriate orders were passed by the concerned Magistrate for releasing the petitioners on bail.

8. Counsel further submits that thereafter, a pre-mature application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was submitted by the complainant-respondent, even befor