Rajasthan High Court Rejects Plea of Absconding Accused and Mandates Creation of Special Cell to Trace Offenders

In a stern rebuke to the systemic failures hindering the administration of justice, the Rajasthan High Court has denied a petition from Nathi Devi, who has been evading trial for nearly 40 years. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the Jaipur Bench, criticized the prolonged absconsion of accused individuals and directed the state government to overhaul its approach to capturing offenders.

A Legacy of Delay: The Background

The case dates back to 1983 when an FIR was registered against the petitioner for offenses under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 323, and 325 of the IPC . While the trial began shortly thereafter, the petitioner’s bail bonds were forfeited in 1987 following her disappearance. Despite being declared an absconder and having standing arrest warrants issued against her in 2000, she remained at large—and according to the Court, within the same jurisdiction—for over three decades.

In 2025, the petitioner sought to convert an active arrest warrant into a bailable one under Section 70 (2) of the Cr.P.C., citing her status as a "rustic lady" who was allegedly unaware of the legal proceedings handled by her now-deceased husband.

Arguments from the Bar

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the failure to appear was born from ignorance rather than malice, emphasizing her rural background. However, the State Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the plea, pointing to the 38-year history of absence. The prosecution underscored that permitting such a plea would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding those who deliberately evade the law to let witness memories fade and evidence stagnate.

Key Observations

The Court found no merit in the petitioner’s claims, noting that the husband passed away in 2019, yet she took no steps to clarify her legal standing for six years thereafter. Justice Dhand did not mince words regarding the implications of such delays:

> "The right to a speedy trial is an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Decades long pendency of cases is a direct violation of this right."

Addressing the operational failure of the police, the Court remarked:

> "It is quite shocking that in the instant matter, the F.I.R. was registered in the year 1983, the petitioner absconded in the year 1987, but till date, she has not been apprehended by the police... Such a long period of absconsion purportedly amounts to intimidating the witnesses to turn hostile."

The Court further clarified the standard for police performance:

> "The Police Authorities are duty bound to trace the absconding accused across the Nation and execute the warrants... They cannot be allowed to take the plea that the accused is ‘untraceable’. Such unwarranted plea of the Police deserves no acceptance."

The Court’s Verdict and Future Implications

Dismissing the petition as an "abuse of process of law," the Rajasthan High Court emphasized that the trial cannot be allowed to remain in a state of suspended animation indefinitely.

To ensure accountability, the Court has issued a mandatory directive to the Principal Secretary, Department of Home, and the Director General of Police, Rajasthan. They are now tasked with establishing a "Special Cell" specifically designed to track down absconding accused and proclaimed offenders. This move signals a significant shift toward proactive executive involvement in ensuring that criminal trials reach their logical conclusion, serving as a reminder that the passage of time does not provide an amnesty for those who evade the justice system.