JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal misc. petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 1.5.2014, whereby the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jahajpur, Bhilwara (for short 'trial court') in Criminal Case No.375/2000 has declared the petitioner as absconder and ordered for issuance of standing warrant of arrest against the petitioner. The trial court has also ordered for initiating the proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is facing trial in the above mentioned criminal regular case for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304A I.P.C. Initially, the petitioner was released on bail by the trial court in the year 2000, however, due to his absence in the trial, standing warrant of arrest was issued against the petitioner on 4.5.2009 and later on, he was arrested and remained in judicial custody from 7.7.2010 to 15.7.2010. On 15.7.2010, again the petitioner was released on bail. As per the petitioner, subsequently on several dates, he appeared before the trial court, however, on 27.9.2012 again he remained absent and on that date, the trial court forfeited bail-bonds of the petitioner and issued arrest warrant against him. Later on vide impugned order dated 1.5.2014, the petitioner was declared as absconder and standing arrest warrant was issued against him with a direction to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Sections 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C. 3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 1.5.2014, the petitioner has filed this criminal misc. petition while contending that the petitioner had failed to appear before the trial court on 27.9.2012 because he went out of State of Rajasthan to earn his livelihood. It is contended that the petitioner, being a truck driver, has to travel different places within and outside the State of Rajasthan in order to earn his livelihood and to support his family and, therefore, it was difficult for the petitioner to remain present before the trial court on the particular date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate person, could not attend the proceedings before the learned trial court regularly and failed to inform his counsel about his inability to appear before the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the petitioner, being an illiterate person, could not attend the proceedings before the learned trial court regularly and failed to inform his counsel about his inability to appear before the trial court. It is also contended that the petitioner is not avoiding his arrest and is always eager to attend the trial on each and every date, but due to some unavoidable circumstances, failed to appear before the trial court on 27.9.2012. It is further prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that one last opportunity may be provided to the petitioner to appear before the trial court and the standing arrest warrant issued by the trial court may kindly be quashed and he may be allowed to appear before the trial court on any date. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner and has stated that since the petitioner has failed to appear before the trial court on the date fixed, he is not entitled to any relief and no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the learned trial court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 6. It is true that earlier also the petitioner remained absent in the trial and, therefore, arrest warrant was issued and later on he was arrested and after remaining in judicial custody for some days, he was released on bail. Again on 27.9.2012, the petitioner was not present in the trial court and, therefore, the trial court forfeited his bail-bonds and ordered for issuance of warrant of arrest against him. Looking to above facts and circumstances of the case, no fault can be found in the impugned order passed by the court below whereby it has ordered for issuing standing arrest warrant against the petitioner. 7. However, looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and assurance given by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this criminal misc. petition is disposed of and the directions issued by the learned trial court vide order dated 1.5.2014 for issuance of standing warrant against the petitioner are kept in abeyance. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 28.11.2014 and furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. petition is disposed of and the directions issued by the learned trial court vide order dated 1.5.2014 for issuance of standing warrant against the petitioner are kept in abeyance. The petitioner is directed to appear before the trial court on or before 28.11.2014 and furnish a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each before the trial court on the day of his appearance. If such personal bond and sureties are furnished by the petitioner, the learned trial court is directed to release the petitioner on bail. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to appear before the trial court on or before 28.11.2014, the order of issuance of standing arrest warrant against the petitioner shall be automatically revived. It is also made clear that the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 82, 83 and 446 Cr.P.C. will continue.Petition disposed of. *******