Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 13316
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN - HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
CHANDRABHAN MEENA S/O LATE SHRI KALURAM MEENA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMP 7676/2022
A non-bailable warrant can be converted into a bailable warrant if the accused is ready and willing to face the trial and there is no likelihood of him absconding.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - SECTION 70(2) - COMPROMISE - NON-BAILABLE WARRANT - BAILABLE WARRANT
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was facing trial for offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. The complainant submitted an affidavit on 29.06.2016 stating that the parties had settled their dispute and he did not want to prosecute the petitioner. The petitioner believed that he had been acquitted and his presence was not required further. However, cognizance was taken against the petitioner on 23.02.2017, his bail bonds were forfeited on 03.07.2018 and an arrest warrant was issued against him. The petitioner filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting the non-bailable warrant into a bailable warrant, which was rejected by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was under the bona fide belief that he had been acquitted from the charges and his presence was not required any further. The court also noted that the petitioner was ready and willing to face the trial.
Issues: Whether the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner should be converted into a bailable warrant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the fact that the complainant had submitted an affidavit stating that he did not want to prosecute the petitioner and that the petitioner was ready and willing to face the trial.
Final Decision: The court directed the petitioner to appear before the trial Court within a period of 15 days from the date of the order. The trial Court was directed to treat the appearance of the petitioner as appearance on summons.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7676/2022
Chandrabhan Meena S/o Late Shri Kaluram Meena, R/o
Heerawala, Thana Kanota, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)
:
Mr. Anang Pal Singh Tanwar
For Respondent(s)
:
Mr. Atul Sharma-PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Order
02/01/2023
Instant petition has been filed against the impugned order
dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Court of Special Additional Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases) Jaipur Metropolitan-
1st, in criminal case no. 509/2018 by which the application filed
by the petitioner under Section 70 (2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C’) has been rejected and also
against the impugned order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the
Court of Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, 1st
by which the revision petition has been dismissed.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
accused in criminal case No. 509/2018 titled as State Vs.
Chandrabhan Meena pending before the Court of Special
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (PCPNDT Act Cases)
Jaipur Metropolitan-1st and is facing trial for the offences under
Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC. Counsel for the petitioner
(2 of 3)
[CRLMP-7676/2022]
submits that on 29.06.2016, the complainant submitted an
affidavit in the form of compromise stating therein that the parties
have settled their dispute and he does not want to prosecute the
petitioner. Counsel submits that the petitioner was under the bona
fide belief that on the basis of the said compromise, the petitioner
was acquitted and his presence was not required further before
the trial Court. Counsel submits that subsequently, cognizance
was taken against the petitioner on 23.02.2017, his bail bonds
were forfeited on 03.07.2018 and arrest warrant was issued
against him. Counsel submits that the petitioner has submitted an
application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. for converting the non-
bailable warrant into a bailable warrant and the said application
has been rejected by the trial Court. Counsel submits that since
the compromise has already taken place between the parties and
the complainant does not wish to further prosecute the petitioner,
hence under these circumstances, the petitioner is ready and
willing to appear before the trial Court hence the non-bailable
warrant issued against the petitioner be ordered to be converted
into a bailable warrant.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer
made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Heard and considered the contentions made by the
respective parties and perused the material available on record.
This fact is not in dispute that the petitioner is facing trial for
the offences under Sections 420, 406 and 120-B of IPC in which
the complainant submitted an affidavit on 29.06.2016 mentioning
therein that compromise has taken place between them and he
does not want to prosecute the petitioner. It appears that the
petitioner remained under the bona fide belief that he has been
(3 of 3)
[CRLMP-7676/2022]
acquitted from the charges and his presence was not required any
further. It appears that the application remained undecided on the
said date and subsequently, cognizance was taken against the
petitioner on 23.02.2017, since the petitioner remained absent.
Hence, the bail bonds were forfeited on 03.07.2018 and
accordingly arrest warrants were issued against him. Now the
petitioner is ready and willing to face the trial under these
circumstances.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court within a
period of 15 days from today.
The trial Court shall treat the appearance of the petitioner as
appearance on summons.
The Criminal Misc. Petition as well as stay application
