Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1959 (RAJ)

Nena Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2011-09-13

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2011
JUDGMENT 1. - Today the matter comes up on an Application No. 2380/2011 for early hearing of the petition. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on merits. 3. The present misc. petition has been filed assailing the order taking cognizance dated 9.4.2001, passed by the A.C.J.M., Bali, as affirmed in revision by order dated 7.6.2011.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this case, the incident is of the year 1996. The F.I.R. was filed after three months of the occurrence and the petitioner has been summoned after five years of the occurrence and warrants of arrest have been issued against him. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the order taking cognizance as well as the order of the revisional Court. 5. Whatever objections the petitioner wishes to raise by way of this misc. petition can be better canvassed before the trial Court at the stage of framing of the charges. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the facts that the incident is of the year 1996, the F.I.R. has been filed after three months of the occurrence and now a period of more then 15 years has passed since the incident took place, it is thought just and proper that the petitioner should be summoned by a bailable warrant instead of warrants of arrest issued against him in light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Inder Mohan Goszoami v. State of Uttranchal, AIR 2008 SC 251 . 6. In this view of the matter, the warrants of arrest issued against the petitioner are directed to be converted into bailable warrants. The petitioner shall appear before the A.C.J.M., Bali and submit the bail bonds in terms of the bailable warrants issued by the trial Court within a period of three weeks from today, failing which the order of issuing warrants of arrest shall stands restored. 7. With the aforesaid observations, the misc. petition is disposed of. The stay petition and the application for early hearing of the petition also stand disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******