Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2100 (RAJ)

Sitaram v. State of Raj.

2012-10-05

RAGHUVENDRA S.RATHORE

body2012
Hon'ble RATHORE, J.—This Misc. Petition has been filed against the order dated 22.9.2012 whereby the learned court below has rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., for converting the non bailable warrants to bailable warrants. 2. The learned trial Court has rejected the application with the following observations: ^^bl U;k;ky; dks vius gh vkns'k dks fjdkWy djus dh 'kfä;ka izkIr ugha gSA vr% zidj.k ds leLr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, vfHk;qäx.k@ izkFkhZx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk i= vUrxZr /kkjk 70¼2½ na-iz-la- ,rn~}kjk vLohdkj fd;k tkdj [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. From the aforesaid order, it appears that the learned court below has not looked into the relevant provisions, much less to have studied the same. The provision of Section 70 Cr.P.C. reads as under: “70. Form of warrant of arrest and duration. (1) Every warrant of arrest issued by a court under this Code shall be in writing, signed by the presiding officer of such court and shall bear the seal of the court. (2) Every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed.” 4. In view of the aforesaid provision, particularly sub-section (2) of Section 70 Cr.P.C. it is clearly borne out that once non bailable warrants is issued, it remains in force until it is cancelled by the Court which had issued it or it has been executed. In other words, a warrant of arrest can be cancelled by the Court which had issued it. Therefore, the Court which had issued a warrant of arrest can pass an order in respect of it subsequently including modification/ alteration of warrants. It does not amount to recalling of the earlier order because such power is given to the Court concerned by the Statute itself namely, the Code of Criminal Procedure. If such powers are exercised by the same court, it is not hit by Section 362 Cr.P.C. because it provides that “Save as otherwise provided by this Court”. When sub-section (2) of Section 70 provides the power for cancelling of warrant of arrest by the court which had issued it then it is saved under this provision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that because of the rejection of the prayer made by the petitioners, Sitaram, Radha Devi, Foranti and Beela have been arrested. When sub-section (2) of Section 70 provides the power for cancelling of warrant of arrest by the court which had issued it then it is saved under this provision. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has informed that because of the rejection of the prayer made by the petitioners, Sitaram, Radha Devi, Foranti and Beela have been arrested. In so far as those petitioners are concerned, this Misc. Petition has become infructuous. 6. However, after taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is deemed proper to dispose of this Misc. Petition with the direction to the accused petitioners No. 2 Ramavtar, No.3 Ram Prasad, NO.4 Vishram, No.7 Rama Devi, and No.8 Pana to appear before the learned trial Court on or before 30.10.2012 so as to furnish the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Till then the non bailable warrants issued against them shall not be executed. The Deputy Registrar (Judl.) is directed to send a copy of this order to the Magistrate concerned as well as to learned District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur.