LAWS(RAJ)-2013-4-33

VRADHI CHAND MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On April 02, 2013
Vradhi Chand Meena Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2013 passed by the Additional Civil Judge(Jr. Division) & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., for converting the non-bailable warrant into bailable one. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a case for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC was registered against the petitioner on 08.05.2007. He was continuously attending the trial till 26.03.2010. However, he was assured by his Counsel that he will be informed of the trial dates. Subsequently, the petitioner was transferred to Haryana as Senior Manager in Union Bank of India. Since he was not informed by his Counsel about the trial dates, he could not appear before the trial Court. Thereafter, the trial Court has issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. Since he was aggrieved by the issuance of non-bailable warrant, he had filed an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. However, by order dated 28.01.2013, the said application has been dismissed.

(2.) Learned counsel has further pleaded that the petitioner is willing to undergo and stand trial. Therefore, he has prayed that the non-bailable warrant issued against the petitioner, should be converted into bailable one, for his appearance before the trial Court on 15.04.2013.

(3.) Considering the fact that the petitioner is facing trial under Section 279, 337 and 338 IPC, considering the fact that he is working as Senior Manager of the Bank, considering the fact that the fault lies with his Counsel for not informing him about the trial dates, and considering the fact that a litigant cannot suffer due to the fault of his Counsel, this Court converts the non-bailable warrant, issued against the petitioner, into bailable one, of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand), for his appearance before the learned trial Court on 15.04.2013. The petition is, accordingly, allowed. The stay application also stands disposed of.