// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT PRINCIPAL SEAT, JODHPUR ORDER In S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No.641/2009 {Amar Singh Vs. The State of Rajasthan} Date of Order :: 8th July, 2009 PRESENT HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Shri Gopi Kishan Sharma, Counsel for petitioner Shri Mahipal Vishnoi and Smt. Raj Laxmi Singh, PP for the State #### By the Court: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has preferred this petition against the order dated 21st April, 2003 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Nokha (Bikaner), whereby the accused- petitioner was summoned through non-bailable warrant. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that although the bailable warrant was served upon the petitioner but the order taking cognizance was challenged and the file was summoned by the revisional court, therefore, he could not appear before the trial court on that date. Now, the revision petition has been dismissed and, after receipt of the // 2 // file from the revisional court, the accused- petitioner has again been summoned through non- bailable warrant. He submits that the next date in the trial court is 20th July, 2009 and the petitioner undertakes to appear before the trial court, but his warrant of arrest may be converted into bailable warrant. The learned Public Prosecutor has not opposed the prayer seriously. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It appears that on 2nd December, 2002, cognizance was taken against the accused-petitioner Amar Singh and co-accused Magga Ram and Bagtudevi for the offence under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471, IPC, and they were summoned through bailable warrant; the accused-petitioner did not appear despite service of bailable warrant, therefore, he was summoned through non-bailable warrant vide order dated 21st April, 2003. It appears from the order-sheet dated 17th April, 2008 of the trial court that file of the revisional court i.e. the Additional Sessions Judge reached to the trial court on that date and as per the earlier orders the accused has been summoned through non-bailable warrant. Although, I do not find any illegality in the // 3 // impugned order passed by the trial court in summoning the accused-petitioner through non- bailable warrant in the facts and circumstances of the present case, but, in the interest of justice, I think it fit and proper that ends of justice will meet in case the accused- petitioner is directed to make himself present before the trial court and to direct the trial court to release him on bail. Consequently, this petition is partly allowed and it is directed that in case the petitioner appears before the trial court on or before 20th July, 2009 then he shall be released on bail on such terms and conditions regarding bail bonds, as imposed by the trial court. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN), J. //Jaiman//