S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.962/2010 Nemi Chand and Anr. Vs. State of Raj. Dated : 21.05.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. Sanjay Sharma, for the petitioners. Mr. Paresh Choudhary, PP for the State. *** By way of this criminal Misc. Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.c., the petitioners have implored to set aside the order dated 16th April, 2010 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Sr.Div.) Weir, District Bharatpur, whereby the application filed under Section 70(2) of Cr. P.C. has been dismissed. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as also the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and carefully perused the impugned order dated 16th April, 2010, it is noticed that both the petitioners have been facing trial for the offence under Section 392 of IPC. This case has been pending in the court since 1999. The petitioners are two real brothers. Sometimes one of the two brothers appeared in the Court and sometimes another brother appeared in the Court. The Court went on to adjourn the case for framing the charge on account of non-appearance of one or the other accused. Resultantly no further proceedings could take place in the case. Ultimately, the court forfeited the bail bonds of Kailashi on 9th May, 2002 on account of his non-appearance and similarly forfeited the bail bonds of the accused petitioner Nemi Chand on 8th September, 2003 for his non-appearance and summoned them through a warrant of arrest. Both the accused persons remained absconding for about 7-8 years. Prior to that also, they did not appear in the Court on each date of hearing. They filed an application for exemption from their personal appearance. The petitioners filed an application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. imploring that the warrant of arrest issued by the Court be converted into bailable warrant, which was dismissed for the reasons mentioned in the impugned order. The petitioners are found to have abused the liberty of bail and they have put every effort to procrastinate the proceedings of the case. I do not find any reason to convert the warrant of arrest into bailable warrant. It is relevant to record that the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are required to be exercised sparingly with circumspection that too, in the rarest of the rare cases. The provisions laid down under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. are not on the top of ladder of judicial recourse. It cannot be exercised in routine. The petition is totally found to be devoid of any substance, which deserves to be dismissed at the threshold. For the reasons stated above, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg