[2025:RJ-JP:48776]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 7697/2025

1. Smt. Dilshad W/o Naved, aged about 51 Years, R/o Amina

Apartment, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 51, Aagri Pada, Mumbai,

Maharashtra.

2. Naved S/o Jaan Mohammed, aged about 45 Years, R/o

Amina Apartment, 5Th Floor, Plot No. 51, Aagri Pada,

Mumbai, Maharashtra.

3. Naheeda W/o Abdul Hameed, aged about 48 Years, R/o

Nisan Nada Road, Motwala Building, Third Floor, R.n. 01,

Doongri, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

4. Jaibunisha W/o Late Jaan Mohammed, aged about 65

Years, R/o Nisan Nada Road, Motwala Building, Third

Floor, R.n. 01, Doongri, Mumbai, Maharashtra.

----Petitioners

Versus

State of Rajasthan, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Aayush Agarwal

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 06.10.2025 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Ajmer by which the application submitted by the petitioners under Section 70(2) of the Cr.P.C. seeking conversion of arrest warrant into

bailable warrant has been rejected.

2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, a revision petition was submitted before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No.2,

Ajmer. However, the same was also rejected vide impugned order dated 27.10.2025.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that F.I.R. No.45/2011 registered at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer against the petitioners, which resulted in final report ‘Negative’ against which a protest petition was filed by the complainant and the same was allowed and the final report ‘Negative’ was rejected and the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 20.01.2016 has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 451, 380, 166 & 120-B of IPC and straightaway, has issued arrest warrant against them for procuring their appearance before the trial Court. Counsel submits that there was no reason or occasion to issue arrest warrant straightaway at the first instance. The petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 are female and all the petitioners are ready and willing to participate in the trial, hence, under these circumstances, an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted seeking conversion of their arrest warrant into bailable warrant. However, the said application has been erroneously rejected by the trial Court hence, 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, the petitioners have been summoned through arrest warrant and their application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. has been rightly rejected not only by the learned Magistrate, but also by the Revisional Court. Hence, interference of this Court is not warranted and the 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 F.I.R. No.45/2011 was lodged by the complainant against the petitioners at Police Station Dargah, Ajmer. After thorough investigation from all the four corners, the Investigating Agency submitted final report ‘Negative’ before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, where a protest petition was submitted by the complainant and the same has been allowed and the final report has been rejected. Further, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 451, 380, 166 & 120-B of IPC and the petitioners have been summoned through arrest warrant at the first instance.

6. In the considered opinion of this Court and looking to the nature of allegations and issue involved in the matter, the trial Court was not supposed to summon the petitioners through arrest warrants at the first instance.

7. Looking to the fact that the petitioner Nos.1, 3 & 4 are female and all the petitioners are ready and willing to appear before the trial Court