HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision No. 823 / 2017
Vikram @ Vinod Kumar S/o Sh. Girdhari Ram, By Caste Prajapat
(Kumar), Resident of Village Majiwala, Police Station- Balotra,
Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.) (Wrongly Mentioned As
Resident of Village Ramseen Moongra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer in the Order Impugned).
—-Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan
2. Ghewar Chand S/o Sh. Bhera Ram, By Caste Prajapat Kumar,
Resident of Village Ramseen Moongra, Tehsil Pachpadra, District
Barmer (Raj.)
—-Respondents
__
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pradeep Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.K. Bohra, PP.
__
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
06/07/2017
By way of this revision petition, the petitioner Vikram @
Vinod Kumar seeks to challenge the order dated 09.06.2017
passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balotra in
Sessions Case No.3/2017 (54/2015) (C.I.S. No.2/2016) whereby
the learned trial court, on an application submitted under Section
319 Cr.P.C. proceeded to array the petitioner as an accused to face
trial alongwith other co-accused and issued warrant of arrest
against him.
Learned counsel Shri Shah urges that the main allegations of
the prosecution were against the husband, mother-in-law and
(2 of 3)
father in law namely Mohan Lal, Girdhari Ram and Smt. Bhanwari
Devi respectively. They were tried and convicted by the trial court.
Whilst convicting the mother-in-law and father-in-law by the
judgment dated 09.06.2017, the trial court has adopted an
unusual step of summoning the petitioner to face trial for the
offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC and has issued
warrant of arrest against him. He urges that the petitioner be
given liberty to raise all his objections before the trial court but as
per him, the direction to summon the petitioner through warrant
of arrest is manifestly unjust because the allegation of admitted
prosecution are primarily against the husband, father-in-law and
mother-in-law all of whom have been enlarged on bail by this
Court while suspending their sentences in appeal. He thus urges
that the impugned order may be modified to the extent, warrant
of arrest was issued against the petitioner and he be permitted to
appear before the trial court and furnish bail and bonds for facing
trial.
Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes the
submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
However, he too does not dispute the fact that the prosecution did
not file charge-sheet against the petitioner after investigation.
Charge-sheet was filed only against three accused persons namely
Girdhari Lal, Smt. Bhanwari Devi and Mohan Lal. These three
accused persons were convicted by the trial court after trial.
However, no step was taken during pendency of the trial to
summon the petitioner as an additional accused, even though,
(3 of 3)
evidence implicating him for the above offences was allegedly
deposed by the witnesses. Sentences awarded to three principal
accused persons have been suspended by this Court.
In this background, this Court is of the opinion that the ends
of justice requires that the direction to summon the petitioner
through a warrant of arrest be modified and he should be allowed
to appear before the trial court and furnish bail and bonds to its
satisfaction.
Thus, while upholding the order impugned dated 09.06.2017
to the extent the petitioner was summoned to face trial for the
above offences, the direction to summon him through warrant of
arrest is modified and instead, the petitioner shall now be
summoned through a bailable warrant in the sum of Rs.50,000/-.
He shall appear before the trial court within a period of six weeks
from today and furnish bail and bonds to its satisfaction
whereupon, he shall be enlarged on bail during pendency of trial.
The petitioner is given liberty to raise all his objections before the
trial court at the appropriate stage.
The revision petition as well as stay application are disposed
of in the above terms.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.
Tikam/107
