MUKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner accused seeks quashing of order dtd. 31/8/2024 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jahajpur, District Bhilwara in Criminal Regular Case No. 292/2015 pending under Ss. 420, 467, 468, 406 and 120-B of IPC. Learned Trial Court has forfeited the bail bonds of the petitioner and directed to initiate the proceedings under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Sec. 491 of BNSS) vide the order impugned herein.

(2.) On a Court query posed to learned Counsel for the petitioner as to why the petitioner/accused did not appear before the learned Trial Court on the fateful date, he submits that the petitioner since works in Indore and he was in extreme difficulty to leave his work and appear before the Court on the assigned date of hearing and therefore had instructed his Counsel representing him before the Trial Court to seek short accommodation by taking appropriate steps. However, as luck would have it, when the case was called out, his Counsel was also held up and could not appear at that time before the Court which led to passing of the impugned order. Learned Counsel informs that Indore to Bhilwara is 383 kms and it takes about 8 hours to reach one way. Despite these circumstances, the learned Trial Court ordered the forfeiture of his bail bonds. Additionally, the Court initiated proceedings under Sec. 446 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Sec. 491 of BNSS) against his surety. The petitioner's inability to appear on the fateful day was due to unforeseen circumstances beyond his control. Therefore, his arrest warrant may be converted into bailable warrant, he urges.

(3.) Learned PP would support the impugned order passed by both the learned Courts below for the reasons stated therein.