Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mula Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 August, 2026
[2026:RJ-JP:36926]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 8004/2026
CNR: RJHC010584222026 | URN: CRLMB / 17428U / 2026
Mula Ram S/o Kheta Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kekar Tehsil
Sedwa, District Barmer Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
2. Mohan Ram S/o Mula Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Village Adarsh Kekar, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer Raj
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DN Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP
Mr. Jitendra Ojha
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
05/08/2026
1. The applicant has filed the present anticipatory bail
application under Section 482 of BNSS being aggrieved against
the order dated 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge,
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and
Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005, Balotra in
Session Case No.14/2023 (CIS No.14/2023), whereby the bail
application filed by the accused-applicant under Section 482 of
B.N.S.S. was rejected. The accused-applicant is apprehending his
arrest in connection with the F.I.R. No.283/2022 registered at
Police Station Sedwa, District Barmer, for the offences punishable
under Sections 450, 376(3) and 376-D of IPC and Sections 3(2)
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (2 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
(va), 3(2)(v) and 3(1)(w)(ii) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Sections 5g
and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that based upon a complaint
lodged by father of the prosecutrix, an FIR came to be lodged
against the present applicant and one co-accused Pappu Ram. As
per the FIR, the complainant ‘M’ stated that when he was working
in his agricultural field, he heard hue and cry of his daughter. On
reaching the site, he saw that his minor daughter was being
sexually assaulted by Pappu Ram. He further stated that around
one and a half year prior, the present applicant, who at that
relevant time was running a medical shop, had committed rape
upon his daughter and video of the same was made by Pappu
Ram. He further assertted that based upon the threat of
committing rape, Pappu Ram forced the victim to have sexual
intercourse with her. Based upon the report, the investigation was
started. The statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C.(Section 180
BNSS) as well as Section 164 Cr.P.C.(Section 183 BNSS) were
recorded, wherein same version was given by the victim with
regard to rape committed by Pappu Ram as well as by present
applicant Mula Ram and there was no inconsistency in the
statements so given. Not only this, the victim was examined as
PW-1 wherein, she did not support the version of the prosecution
regarding Pappu Ram, however, as far as the present applicant is
concerned, she remained firm on her stand that the applicant had
sexually assaulted her while she went to purchase the medicine
and thereafter, time and again also under the threat to her of
making the video viral.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (3 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
2.1 The police post investigation had filed the charge-sheet
against Pappu Ram only and no case was found to be made out
against the present applicant. Thereafter, on an application under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. (Section 358 BNSS), the applicant was
summoned by way of an arrest warrant while adding him as an
accused by way of order dated 26.07.2024 passed by learned
Special Judge Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Commission for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005,
Balotra. The above-mentioned order came to be challenged by the
applicant by way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.1244/2024 “Mula Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.“. The
revision petition came to be dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this
Court vide its order dated 19.03.2026 while dealing with all the
grounds taken by learned counsel for the applicant with regard to
the victim turning hostile, as far as Pappu Ram is concerned, the
testimony of prosecutrix was not of sterling worth, as also the
argument that the basis of passing the order under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was not at all justified. The Court turned down all the
arguments of learned counsel for the applicant and thereafter,
while considering the entire facts of the case, dismissed the
revision petition while upholding the order of adding the applicant
as an additional accused and summoning him by an arrest
warrant. Against the same order, the present anticipatory bail
application has been filed.
2.2. It will be further relevant to mention here that thereafter, the
applicant had filed an application for converting the arrest warrant
into bailable warrant before the learned Trial Court, which also
came to be rejected. Against the same order, again the applicant
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (4 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
filed a revision petition being S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.871/2026 “Moola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” which
came to be dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 29.06.2026 while holding that the learned Trial Court had
not committed any illegality in summoning the accused through
arrest warrant. The Court had also considered the fact that earlier
order passed by the learned Trial Court, while adding applicant as
an accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C., was already upheld by the
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant while again challenging the
order dated 26.07.2024, whereby application under Section 319
Cr.P.C. was allowed and the accused was summoned by arrest
warrant, has again submitted that the basis of the order happens
to be recovery of an underwear. However, there was no allegation
of the applicant committing sexual assault at the house of the
victim and therefore, underwear did not belong to the applicant.
He further submits that the testimony of the victim is not even
sterling worth for the reason that she has taken a complete
somersault and stated that she has entered a compromise with
co-accused Pappu Ram and has further stated that Pappu Ram did
not commit any sexual assault upon her. He further asserted that
the underwear, which was recovered belonged to Pappu Ram
which is clear from the recovery memo Exhibit P-7.
3.1 Faced with the objection with regard to the order in question
being already upheld in the revision petition, learned counsel for
the applicant places reliance upon the judgment passed by
Division Bench of this Court in the case of “Manohar Lal Saini &
Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan” reported in 2016(1) Cr.L.R.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (5 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
(Raj.) 184, wherein this Court has held that when the accused is
summoned through an arrest warrant, then such person can
challenge the order invoking provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
and can also apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
3.2 He further refers to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of “Prabhu Chawla vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.”
reported in AIR (2016) SC 4245, wherein, while dealing with the
inherent powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vis-a-vis
the remedy of revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C., the Hon’ble Apex
Court has held that alternative remedy of revision cannot by itself
be a ground to dismiss a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. He,
therefore, implores this Court to allow the present anticipatory bail
application.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant oppose the bail application and submit
that all the evidences since the inception i.e. lodging of the FIR,
the statements recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C. as
well as the statement of the victim recorded by the learned Trial
Court as PW-1, as regards the applicant the stand has remained
consistent with regard to sexual assault being committed upon her
by the applicant at the shop of the applicant itself. They further
submit that the impugned order in the present case has already
been challenged by way of filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.1244/2024 “Mula Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.” which
came to be dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 19.03.2026. It was further argued that post that an
application was filed for converting the arrest warrant into bailable
warrant which also came to be dismissed and against the said
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (6 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
order, another revision petition being S.B. Criminal Revision
Petition No.871/2026 “Moola Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.”
was also filed which also came to be dismissedby Coordinate
Bench of this Court vide its order dated 29.06.2026. They,
therefore, assert that since both the revision petitions are
dismissed, the applicant is estopped from challenging the same
order. They submit that also considering the allegations levelled
against the applicant and the material available on record, the
applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. A perusal of the criminal complaint as well as the statements
of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., 164 Cr.P.C.
as well as her statement as PW-1 before the learned Trial Court,
will clearly reflect that her stand has been consistent. As far as the
role of the applicant is concerned, she has stated in clear words
that when she went to purchase medicines at the shop of the
applicant and under the garb of checking the victim, the applicant
committed rape of the victim and qua the incident in question, a
video was made by Pappu Ram. Under the threat of video being
made viral, the applicant committed sexual assault upon the
victim more than 3 to 4 times.
6.1 True it is that the initial incident narrated was pertaining to
one and a half year back but it is a case of continuing offence,
inasmuch as, post that under the threat of video being made viral,
the sexual assault was again committed for 3 to 4 times. The
stand of the prosecutrix has not changed and she has remained
firm in her cross-examination also and no deviation with regard to
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (7 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
the incident has been made in her cross-examination. Simply
because she has taken a somersault as far as the act of Pappu
Ram is concerned, by itself would not be a ground to discard her
testimony as ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ is not applicable to
the Indian criminal jurisprudence. Even otherwise, the testimony
of the prosecutrix as well as her father is consistent, as far as the
commission of rape on the part of the present applicant is
concerned.
6.2 As far as the challenge to the order impugned dated
26.07.2024 (impugned order) is concerned, needless to
emphasize that the same was already challenged by the applicant
by way of filing a criminal revision petition being S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.1244/2024 “Mula Ram vs. State of Rajasthan
& Anr.” and by way of its order dated 19.03.2026, Coordinate
Bench of this Court while considering each and every arguments
of the same learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the
applicant, has upheld the validity of the order passed under
Section 319 Cr.P.C.
6.3 Needless to emphasize that this Court is not sitting as a
Court of appeal against the order passed by the Coordinate Bench
of this Court and once the validity of the order has been upheld,
this Court is having no jurisdiction to thereafter decide the
correctness of the same at this stage. Even otherwise, post
passing of the order in question the applicant filed an application
for converting the arrest warrant into bailable warrant, which also
came to be dismissed. Again that order was challenged in S.B.
Criminal Revision Petition No.871/2026 “Moola Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr.“, decided on 29.06.2026.
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (8 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
6.4 This Court, while considering all the arguments again by the
same counsel, had dismissed the revision petition vide its order
dated 29.06.2026, while quoting the earlier order and dealing with
all other arguments as to whether the arrest warrant could be
converted into bailable warrant and as to whether the revision
petition was maintainable or not.
6.5 For sake of convenience, the order dated 29.06.2026 is
quoted as under:-
“1. By way of filing the present criminal revision petition under
Section 479 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed
before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased to call for the record
of trial Court bearing Session Case No- 66/2026 titled State
V/S Pappu Ram and after hearing the counsel for the
petioner be please to allow thi revision petition and pass the
following orders:-
(a) To quash and set aside the order dated 08/05/2026
passed in session case No 66/2026 state v/s Pappu Ram (in
Criminal Misc. Application No.42/2026, CIS No- 83/2026
titled Moola Ram V/S state of Rajasthan) by which
Application Annexure-13 dated 13/04/2026 has been
rejected by overlooking Substantive documentary Admitted
Evidence not warranted u/s 319 CrP.C. for taking
Cognizance against petitioner as Additional accused and be
also pleased to pass an order to allow the Application
Annexure-13 filed by petitioner before trial court.
(b) To pass an order to quash and set-aside order dated
26/07/2024 passed by the trial Court by which trial court
has taken Cognizance u/s 319 Cr.P.C. aginst the petitioner
as Additional Accused by overlooking and going off the
record in exclusion sufficient admitted Evidence denying
any offence committed by petitioner.
(c) To pass an order for Converting Arrest Warrant into
Bailable warrant against order dated 26/07/2024 passed by
trial court.
(d) To pass such order as the hon’ble court may deem fit
and proper in the interest of justice.”
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (9 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
2. This is the second round of litigation between the parties.
3. The record of the case indicates that, prior to filing the
present revision petition, the petitioner had preferred S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.1244/2024, titled Mula Ram vs. State of
Rajasthan & Anr., before this Court, assailing the order dated
26.07.2024 passed by the competent criminal Court whereby the
petitioner was arrayed as an additional accused and summoned
through an arrest warrant. The operative portion of the order dated
26.07.2024, which was the subject matter of challenge in the
aforesaid revision petition, is reproduced below for ready reference:-
“18. अतः परिवादी की ओर से प्रस्तत
ु प्रार्थना पत्र अन्तर्गत धारा
319 सीआर.पी.सी. दिनांकित 8.11.2023 स्वीकार किया जाकर अभियक्
ु त
मूलाराम पुत्र खेताराम जाट निवासी केकड तहसील सेडवा जिला बाडमेर के
विरूद्ध धारा. 376(3) भारतीय दण्ड संहिता, धारा 3/4 (2) पोक्सो
अधिनियम व धारा 3(1) (w) (ii) व 3(2) (v) अनुसूचित जाति एवं
अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम के अपराध का प्रसंज्ञान
लिया जाता है तथा उसके विरूद्ध कार्यवाही की जाकर उसे तलब कर उसका
विचारण, विचाराधीन अभियुक्त पपरु ाम के साथ किये जाने का आदे श दिया
जाता है । अतः अभियुक्त मूलाराम पुत्र खेताराम जाट निवासी केकड तहसील
सेडवा जिला बाडमेर जरिये वारं ट गिरफ्तारी से तलब हो । प्रकरण के न्यायोचित
निस्तारण हे तु यहाँ यह भी आदे श दिया जाना उचित होगा कि उक्त मुलजिम
मूलाराम की उपस्थिति सुनिश्चित होने के पश्चात ् सक्षम चिकित्सा अधिकारी
से उसकी पुरूषत्व जाँच करवामी जावे तथा उसके खन
ू का एफ.टी.ए. कार्ड पर
नमूना लिया जाकर उसे संरक्षित कर एफ.एस.एल. जाँच हे तु भेजा जावे तथा
पीडिता के कपडों व वेजाईनल स्वाब व स्मेयर में पाये गये मानव वीर्य से उसका
डी.एन.ए. परीक्षण करवाया जावे तथा घटना स्थल से जब्त अण्डरवीयर (LUX
COZI) से मुलजिम मूलाराम के खून का डी.एन.ए. परीक्षण भी करवाया जावे
।”
4. The prayer clause contained in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.1244/2024, titled Mula Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., is
also reproduced below for ready reference:-
“It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully
prayed before this Hon’ble Court to be pleased call for the
record of trial court and after hearing the counsel for the
petitioner be pleased to allow. This revision petition
and quash the order of trial court dated 26.07.2024
or pass such order as the Hon’ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the interest of justice.”
5. A Coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing S.B. Criminal
Revision Petition No.1244/2024, dismissed the same by a detailed
order dated 19.03.2026. The order dated 19.03.2026 is reproduced
below for ready reference:-
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (10 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]“1. The instant criminal revision petition has been
preferred by the petitioner assailing the order dated
26.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, POCSO
Act Cases, Balotra in Sessions Case No.14/2023, whereby
the application moved on behalf of the complainant under
Section 319 of the Cr.P.C., 1973, has been allowed, and
the present petitioner has been directed to be arrayed as
an additional accused, with consequential issuance of
process against him.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at
length and have meticulously perused the impugned
order as well as the material available on record.
3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case originates from
FIR No.228/2022, registered at Police Station Sedwa,
District Barmer for offences punishable under the
relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the POCSO
Act, and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein
allegations of rape were levelled against the present
petitioner along with co-accused Papu Ram. Upon
completion of investigation, however, the police filed the
charge-sheet only against co-accused Papu Ram,
exonerating the present petitioner without assigning
cogent reasons.
3.1. Subsequent to the commencement of trial, the
prosecutrix (victim “G”) was examined as PW-1. In her
examination-in-chief, on oath, she categorically levelled
allegations of rape against the present petitioner. It is
noteworthy that such allegations were not an
embellishment introduced at a belated stage; rather,
they find mention right from the inception, including in
the FIR and in her statements recorded during
investigation. Even during cross-examination, she
remained steadfast and consistent, reiterating the
allegations not only of sexual assault but also of criminal
intimidation attributed to the petitioner.
3.4. The jurisprudence surrounding Section 319 Cr.P.C.
has, over time, been expounded and crystallized through
a catena of authoritative pronouncements, and thus the
law in this regard is no longer res integra. The provision
stands as a potent instrument in the hands of the trial
court, enabling it to transcend the मीमित contours of the
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (11 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
police report and to independently assess the evidentiary
material that unfolds during the course of trial.
3.5. At its core, Section 319 Cr.P.C. is founded upon the
paramount principle that the administration of criminal
justice cannot be rendered subservient to investigative
lapses or omissions. The legislature, in its wisdom, has
consciously employed expansive phraseology “any person
not being the accused” so as to vest the court with wide
amplitude to summon even those individuals who were
either not charge-sheeted, or were consciously
exonerated by the investigating agency, or whose
involvement surfaced only subsequently during trial.
3.6. The power, though extraordinary in nature, is
neither unguided nor unbridled. It is circumscribed by a
stringent evidentiary threshold. The court must arrive at
a prima facie satisfaction of a higher degree, more
compelling than that required at the stage of framing of
charge. The evidence must be substantial, cogent, and
indicative of active complicity, such that, if left
unrebutted, it would reasonably lead to conviction. A
mere suspicion, conjecture, or possibility of involvement
is not sufficient to invoke this provision.
3.7. What assumes particular significance is that the
satisfaction of the court must emanate strictly from the
evidence adduced during trial, such as statements
recorded on oath before the court, and not merely from
the material collected during investigation under Section
161 Cr.P.C. This ensures that the power is exercised on
the basis of tested and judicially scrutinized evidence,
rather than on unverified investigative inputs.
3.8. Furthermore, the stage of invocation of Section 319
Cr.P.C. is also of considerable breadth. The provision can
be pressed into service at any stage after
commencement of inquiry or trial, thereby enabling the
court to respond dynamically to the evidentiary
developments as they unfold. This dynamic character
ensures that the trial does not proceed in a truncated or
incomplete manner by excluding persons who appear,
from the evidence, to be equally culpable.
3.9. Another defining characteristic of Section 319 Cr.P.C.
is its role as a judicial safeguard against arbitrary or
perfunctory investigation. Where the investigating
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (12 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
agency, for reasons either inadvertent or deliberate, fails
to array a person as an accused despite material
indicating his involvement, the court is not rendered
powerless. Rather, it is under a solemn duty to step in
and uphold the majesty of law by ensuring that all real
offenders are brought within the fold of trial.
3.10. Thus, the provision embodies a delicate balance, on
the one hand, it protects individuals from being
summoned on the basis of flimsy or speculative material;
on the other, it ensures that no guilty person escapes
prosecution merely because of investigative deficiencies.
3.11. In summation, Section 319 Cr.P.C. is a
manifestation of the court’s inherent commitment to
truth, fairness, and completeness of justice, empowering
it to summon and try any person against whom strong
and convincing evidence emerges during trial,
irrespective of the conclusions drawn by the police.
Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the
facts at hand, it is manifest that the name of the present
petitioner was specifically mentioned in the FIR, and the
allegations against him were consistently reiterated by
the prosecutrix in her statements recorded during
investigation.
3.12. More significantly, during trial, while deposing as
PW-1, the victim unequivocally attributed specific acts
constituting the offence of rape to the petitioner. Her
testimony remained unshaken and consistent even during
cross-examination. At this stage, there is no material on
record to prima facie infer that the prosecutrix is
unreliable or that her testimony suffers from inherent
improbabilities. The evidentiary threshold required under
Section 319 Cr.P.C. thus stands satisfied, inasmuch as
there exists substantive and incriminating evidence
before the Court indicating the complicity of the
petitioner.
3.13. It is also evident that despite the existence of such
material during investigation, the police, for reasons not
borne out from the record, chose to exonerate the
petitioner and did not array him as an accused. In such
circumstances, the Court is not only empowered but
duty-bound to give full effect to the legislative mandate
embodied in Section 319 Cr.P.C., so as to ensure that no
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (13 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
culpable individual evades trial on account of
investigative lapses.
3.14. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the learned trial court has
exercised its jurisdiction under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in a
judicious and legally sustainable manner. The order
impugned reflects due application of mind and is founded
upon cogent and credible evidence emerging during trial.
3.15. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of
the case this Court is of the opinion that the impugned
order does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity,
jurisdictional error, ог perversity warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
4. Consequently, the present revision petition, being
devoid of merit, fails and is hereby dismissed.
5. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand
dismissed accordingly.”
6. After dismissal of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition
No.1244/2024, the petitioner filed an application before the
competent criminal Court under Sections 70(2) and 294 Cr.P.C.,
inter alia, contending that he had been falsely implicated in the
present case; that the victim had already entered into a
compromise with the co-accused, Moola Ram; and that the FIR had
been lodged with gross delay. On these premises, the petitioner
prayed that the arrest warrant issued against him, as well as all
consequential criminal proceedings, be quashed and set aside.
Reliance was placed on the following judgments:-
1. “Manohar Lal Saini & Ors. vs. State of
Rajasthan reported in 2016 (1) Cr. LR (Raj.) 184″
2. “Archana Mishra vs. State of U.P. reported in
(2019) 3 Crimes 78 (SC).”
3. “Abdulla Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in
2012 (4) WLC (Raj.) 67.”
4. “Smt. Kala Devi vs. State of Rajasthan passed
in S.B. Crl. Misc. Petition No.38/2015 decided on
21.01.2015″
reported in 2026 INSC 47 (SC).”
7. Heard.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the material available on record, this Court finds
that the learned trial Court, after taking into consideration the
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (14 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]
overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that,
vide order dated 26.07.2024, cognizance had already been taken
against the petitioner and he had been summoned through an
arrest warrant, rejected the application filed under Sections 70(2)
and 294 Cr.P.C. The learned trial Court further noticed that the
challenge laid by the petitioner to the order dated 26.07.2024 by
filing S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1244/2024 had already
been negatived by this Court.
9. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel
for the petitioner raised almost identical submissions to those which
had been advanced while challenging the order dated 26.07.2024 in
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1244/2024. This Court is
conscious of the fact that, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, it
is required to confine itself to examining the correctness, legality
and propriety of the order passed by the trial Court. This Court
cannot undertake an evaluation of the evidence available against the
accused so as to record findings on merits. It is pertinent to note
that, in the present case, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, after
examining the entire material available on record in detail, vide
order dated 19.03.2026, has already upheld the order dated
26.07.2024 taking cognizance against the petitioner and directing
that he be summoned through an arrest warrant.
10. This Court finds no patent illegality, perversity, or
jurisdictional error in the impugned order passed by the learned trial
Court. Thus, no case for interference with the impugned order dated
08.05.2026 is made out.
11. Consequently, the present criminal revision petition
deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.
12. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ”
6.6 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court finds that the validity of the impugned order dated
26.07.2024 passed by the learned Trial Court cannot be gone into
again by this Court while dealing with the application under
Section 438 Cr.P.C. As far as the judgment relied upon by the
learned counsel for the applicant is concerned, a bare perusal of
the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of “Manohar Lal Saini (supra)” will reveal that the Court
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (15 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]has rather specified that against the order passed under Section
319 Cr.P.C., the accused has either of two remedies i.e. (i) he can
file a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or (ii) can also file an
anticipatory bail application. For the sake of convenience,
paragraph-59 of the judgment is quoted as under:-
“If the Court, by taking cognizance against a person at the stage
of invocation of power under Section 319 of the Code, decides to
join him as an accused, such person cannot approach the court to
recall the order but he certainly has the remedy of challenging
that order before this Court invoking provisions of Section 482 of
the Court. He also has the remedy to apply for anticipatory bail
under Section 438 of the Code. Though the court having issued
bailable warrant, would not be, in the event of appearance of the
accused, without any new development in between, justified in
reconsidering its decision on the same material and sending the
accused behind the bars, but at the same time we must hasten to
add that the court is not powerless, if any intervening
circumstances justify sending the accused behind the bars,
despite being summoned by bailable warrant and it may do so on
its own or at the instance of prosecution/complainant. We may,
by way of illustration, narrate few such circumstances, namely,
(i) the accused, in response to the bailable warrant so issued, has
failed to attend the proceedings of the court on given date and
time or (ii) has violated any condition of the bail bond or (iii) that
the court later on comes to know that he was a habitual offender
and has abused the liberty of bail by repeatedly committing
offence(s) or (iv) that he has intimidated the witnesses or
tempered with evidence, or (v) there is likelihood of his feeling
from justice, and so on and so forth. We are therefore not
inclined to uphold the argument that it would attract the bar of
Section 362 of the Code. And we may reiterate here again that if
the court has taken a conscious decision to summon an accused
by bailable warrant to appear before it on a particular date and to
continue do so to attend until otherwise directed, and if the
accused, having undertaken so by furnishing bail bond and
surety/sureties, has appeared on such date and continues to
appear on future dates, the court, without there being any
supervening circumstance and valid reason, would not be justified
in sending him behind the bars just because it at later point of(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
[2026:RJ-JP:36926] (16 of 16) [CRLMB-8004/2026]time changes its opinion and takes another view of the matter on
the same material. ”
6.7 Further, as far as judgment of “Prabhu Chawla (supra)” is
concerned, the same deals with filing of a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. where there is availability of remedy of revision under
Section 397 Cr.P.C. and it has been held that mere alternative
remedy of revision would not take away the remedy of filing an
application invoking inherent powers of the Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C.
6.8 In the present case, as far as the judgment of Prabhu
Chawla (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable. As far as
Manohar Lal (supra) is concerned, the same would be of no help
to the applicant as the applicant has already invoked the remedy
of filing a revision petition and also challenged the order, whereby
a prayer was made for converting the arrest warrant into the
bailable warrant. Both the revision petitions have already been
dismissed. Thus, in the present case the applicant has already
invoked both the remedies available to him and failed at both the
instances.
7. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the
case, no case for grant of bail is made out. Accordingly, the
present bail application is dismissed.
8. It is further, made clear that the findings
recorded/observations made hereinabove are for limited purposes
of adjudication of bail application and the same shall not prejudice
the trial of the case in any manner.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J
71/Charul Gakhar
(Uploaded on 07/08/2026 at 01:58:06 PM)
(Downloaded on 07/08/2026 at 08:45:40 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
