[2025:RJ-JP:48774]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7631/2025

Yashvini Rajoria D/o Om Prakash Rajoria, aged about 50 Years, Quarter Master/deputy Commandant, Hadi Rani Battallion, Naroli, Ajmer, Currently Posted at Additional Superintendent Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Police Headquarters,

Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan, through Public Prosecutor.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Deepak Chauhan with

Mr.Akshay Singh Shekhawat &

Ms.Misha Sharma

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Choudhary, PP

JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

01/12/2025

1. By way of filing the instant criminal misc. petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No.2, Ajmer in Criminal Case No.384/2025 by which the application submitted by the petitioner under Section 72(2) of the BNSS, 2023 seeking conversion of arrest warrant into bailable warrant

has been rejected.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for an incident pertaining to the year 2015, a complaint was filed after a delay of five years and on the basis thereof, a cognizance has persons under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of

IPC. The petitioner is an Officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police. Counsel submits that instead of issuing arrest warrant at the first instance, the trial Court could have summoned the petitioner through summons or bailable warrants to procure her presence. The petitioner is holding a responsible post of higher police officials and she is ready and willing to appear before the Trial Court to face the trial. Hence, under these circumstances, an application was submitted by the petitioner for conversion of her arrest warrant into bailable warrant, but the said application has been rejected by the trial Court. Hence, under these circumstance, interference of this Court is warranted.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer and submitted that looking to the gravity of the matter, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner for the above stated offences and the trial Court has not committed an error in summoning the petitioner through arrest warrant. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the instant petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record.

5. Perusal of the record indicates that for an incident pertaining to the year 2015, a complaint was filed against the petitioner along-with co-accused persons for the offences under Sections 409, 467, 468, 471, 474 and 120-B of IPC and cognizance has for the above stated offences and straightaway on the very first day, arrest warrant has been issued.

6. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goswami & Anr. Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. reported in (2007) 12 SCC 1 has categorically held that arrest warrant should not be issued at the first instance and the accused should not be summoned through summons or bailable warrants. Afterall, the personal liberty of an individual is involved which would be violated by calling him through arrest warrant and sending him in custody.

7. Looking to the nature of allegations and looking to the fact that the petitioner is a Police Officer of the rank of Additional Superintendent of Police and in the considered opinion of this Court, the application submitted by the petitioner deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The trial Court is directed to recall the arrest warrants issued against the petitioner. In case, the petitioner appears before the trial Court on or before 19.12.2025, she be released on bail after taking personal surety bonds subject to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /8 Powerd by TCPDF (w.tcpdf.org)