Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2321 (RAJ)

Bhagwat Singh Jhala v. State of Rajasthan

2013-12-19

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant misc. petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Udaipur in revision whereby the application filed by the petitioner for exemption from personal appearance was rejected. 2. Facts of the case are that a case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Accusation was read over to the accused. The evidence of the complainant was completed. The case was fixed on , 25.10,2013 for the recording of defence evidence on behalf of the petitioner, on , that day. an application for exemption was moved on his behalf, which was ' rejected by the Trial Court and the bail bonds of the petitioner were forfeited. Simultaneously, the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. were opened and the petitioner was directed to be summoned through warrant of arrest. The said 1 order was assailed by the petitioner by filing a revision and the Revisional Court : also affirmed the order and hence this misc. petition. 3. Shri G.S. Rathore learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the , petitioner is a Government servant and could not appear before the Trial Court ( for valid reasons as he was held up in the discharge of his official duties. He thus n prays that the impugned order whereby the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner was rejected, his bail bonds were forfeited be quashed and the petitioner be permitted to participate in the proceedings as if his bail bonds had not been forfeited. 4. Upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after going through the order impugned, this Court is of the opinion that the Trial Court cannot be held to be totally unjustified in rejecting the exemption application filed on behalf of the petitioner. The exemption application which was filed on behalf of the petitioner, was in a printed form and blanks had been filled therein. No specific reasons were mentioned in the exemption application as to why the petitioner was not able to appear before the Trial Court on the scheduled date except a bald assertion that he was busy in official duty. The exemption application which was filed on behalf of the petitioner, was in a printed form and blanks had been filled therein. No specific reasons were mentioned in the exemption application as to why the petitioner was not able to appear before the Trial Court on the scheduled date except a bald assertion that he was busy in official duty. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the order dated 27.11.2013 passed by the Trial Court cannot be said to be either illegal, perverse or amounting to an abuse of the process of the Court. 5. Accordingly, the misc. petition being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected. Stay petition is also rejected. 6. However, the petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the Trial Court and file an application for bail within a period of four weeks from today. Upon his so appearing before the Trial Court, the Trial Court shall release the petitioner on bail considering the fact that the offence is bailable as well as the fact that the petitioner is a Government servant. However, the petitioner will have to answer the proceedings under Section 446 Cr.P.C. as per law. If the petitioner fails to appear before the Trial Court within the aforesaid period of four weeks, the liberty given to him to appear before the Trial Court and file the bail shall not longer be available to him. *******