Advocates:
['MAHAVEER BISHNOI', '', 'HANUMAN SINGH', 'VIJAY BISHNOI', 'JAYRAM SARAN', 'GAURAV BISHNOI', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7105/2021

Vijay Singh S/o Sh. Maniram, Aged About 48 Years, 1 Gda, Teh.

Gharsana, Dist. Sriganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

2.

Sh. Jagdish Chandra S/o Sh. Rajiram, Aged About 45

Years, Mandi Gharsana, Dist. Sriganganagar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr Arun Kumar, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Order

15/02/2022

The petitioner is facing trial before the court of Addl. District

& Sessions Judge, Gharsana, Sriganganagr in Sessions Case

No.75/2018 (Old Case No.13/2012) for the offence punishable

under Section 306 IPC. The investigation of the case was

undertaken by Keshri Chand Jandu who was posted as Dy.

Superintendent of Police, Suratgarh at the relevant point of time.

Despite fervent efforts, the prosecution could not present this

witness for recording his evidence and thus, the learned Addl.

Public Prosecutor gave up the said witness. Thereafter, the

defence submitted an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. for

summoning Shri Keshari Chand Jandu in defence. The application

was accepted by order dated 04.09.2019. However, inadvertently,

the witness was summoned as a prosecution witness whereas he

(2 of 3)

[CRLMP-7105/2021]

had been summoned on the application of the defence. By order

dated 09.09.2021, the trial court directed that the defence may

present its witness on the next date failing which, the evidence

shall be closed. The summoning of the witness Keshari Chand was

closed with an observation that the witness had been summoned

on 12 occasions by bailable warrants and arrest warrants but he

did not appear. The direction to close evidence of the police officer

Shri Keshari Chand is assailed by the accused petitioner.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at

bar and have gone through the material available on record.

I am of the firm opinion that once the trial court had

directed summoning of a police officer as a defence witness by

accepting the application of the defence, merely because despite

repeated efforts the witness did not appear in the Court that could

not be a valid ground to close his evidence. As a matter of fact,

the trial court should have adopted coercive measures by sending

the arrest warrants of the witness to the higher police officials and

to require his presence in the Court for recording of the evidence.

Thus, the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by the learned trial

court is quashed and set aside. The trial court shall issue warrant

of arrest against the witness Keshari Chand Jandu and summon

him as a defence witness. The warrant of arrest shall be forwarded

to the Inspector General, Range Bikaner and Director General of

Police, Jaipur, who shall ensure execution thereof so that the

witness Keshari Chand can be presented in the Court for recording

his evidence within next 45 days.

(3 of 3)

[CRLMP-7105/2021]

The misc. petition is disposed of accordingly.

A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the trial court

forthwith.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

37-Sudhir Asopa/-