MOOL CHAND AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dated. 6.10.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Bassi, District Jaipur whereby he had dismissed the application under Section 70(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (henceforth to be referred to as 'the Code' for short) filed by the petitioners. They have also challenged the order dated 26.10.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur whereby the learned Judge had upheld the former order dated 6.10.2005.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 25.6.1993 one Jagdish lodged a written report at Police Station, Bassi against the present petitioners for offences under Sections 147, 447. 341, 457 Indian Penal Code. On the basis of the said SEEK registered a F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 232/1993. After a thorough investigation, the police eventually submitted a charge-sheet against the present petitioners before the Judicial Magistrate. For two long years, the petitioners regularly attended the trial. However, since Mool Chand became paralyzed and blind, he could not attend the trial on a regular basis. The Petitioner No. 2, Chand Mal, is an old infirm man of 72 years old. Therefore, he too could not attend the trial on a regular basis. The Petitioners No. 3, Kailash Chand, left the village and he is presently residing at Gujarat and engaged in some private job. Although his counsel had assured him that he would seek permission of the Court to dispense with his personal attendance, but he was never informed by his counsel about the progress of the case. For a decade, the trial Court waited for the accused persons. Vide order dated 20.9.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate declared the present accused petitioners as absconders and initiated the proceedings against them under Sections 82 and 83 of the Code. As soon as the petitioners learned about the issuance of non-bailable warrants against them, they moved an application under Section 70(2) of the Code. In their application, the physical conditions of Mool Chand and Chand Mal were spelt out. However, vide order dated 6.10.2005, the learned Judicial Magistrate dismissed the said application. Subsequently, the petitioners filed a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur. However, the learned Judge also dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners vide order dated 26.10.2005. Hence, this petition before us.

(3.) Admittedly, the offences are bailable in nature. Admittedly, the Petitioner No. 1 and the Petitioner No. 2 are physically weak. They are passing through the twilight of their life. They are physically handicapped and their ailment prevent them from attending the trial for a petty offence. The Petitioner No. 3 although middle aged, has to earn for his family. In order to survive economically, he has been working in Gujarat. All the three petitioners have given an undertaking that they will face the trial. But they have prayed that the non-bailable warrants should be converted into bailable one.