Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Rajesh Bhai Jat Alias Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:12529) on 16 March, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:12529]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 1399/2026
Rajesh Bhai Jat Alias Rajesh Kumar S/o Karan Singh, Aged About
46 Years, R/o Bhadesara, P.s. Bhiwani Sadar, District Bhiwani,
Haryana At Present Residing At In Front Of Hanuman Park
Vidhyanagar, Bhiwanai P.s. Industrial Area Bhiwani, District
Bhiwani Haryana
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.K. Charan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S.Chandawat, Dy.G.A.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/03/2026
1.By way of the present Misc. Petition, the petitioner has
invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with the
primary objective of quashing the proceedings initiated by
the order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Revdar, District Sirohi, in relation to FIR No.
113/2023, under Sections 14/57 & 19/57, 54D of the Excise
Act. The petitioner seeks the annulment of the order
whereby he was declared an absconder, and a warrant of
arrest was issued against him. The petitioner contends that
the coercive measures undertaken were in clear
contravention of the procedural safeguards enshrined under
the law, and accordingly, prays for the setting aside of such
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:35:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:39:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12529] (2 of 5) [CRLMP-1399/2026]
actions with appropriate directions to secure the ends of
justice.
2.Without delving into superfluous details, the facts pertinent
to the adjudication of the present petition are succinctly
summarized. FIR No.113/2023, lodged at Police Station
Revdar, District Sirohi, concerns the interception of a vehicle
and the subsequent recovery of a specified quantity of Indian
Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). In the course of the incident,
one Devabhai, the alleged driver of the vehicle in question,
was taken into custody by the police authorities.
3.I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
and has examined the material made available on record.
4.According to the prosecution’s case, the registered owner of
the truck from which the contraband liquor was allegedly
recovered is one Karmur Vishal S/o Ramabhai, resident of
Jamnagar, Gujarat. During the investigation, the authorities
sought to trace various links concerning the ownership and
transfer of the said vehicle, attempting to establish a chain of
transactions involving multiple intermediaries who were
purportedly involved in the sale or transfer of the vehicle
from one individual to another.
5.The material on record further reveals that, eventually, the
charge-sheet was filed against two individuals, namely,
Devabhai and Rameshbhai. However, the investigation
remains pending with respect to certain other persons,
including Mahipal @ Sanjay Jakhad and Bhaveshbhai.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:35:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:39:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12529] (3 of 5) [CRLMP-1399/2026]
Additionally, Karmur Vishal, the registered owner of the
vehicle, and one Puranmal were also mentioned in the
investigation. A thorough examination of the case diary and
accompanying documents, however, fails to substantiate any
specific or substantial allegations regarding the petitioner’s
direct involvement in the alleged transportation of illicit
liquor.
6.Notably, the prosecution material does not provide
convincing evidence of the petitioner’s participation in the
offense or a clear causal link attributable to him. The
connection that is sought to be established appears to be
tenuous and indirect, primarily resting upon transactional
links relating to the vehicle’s ownership or transfer, rather
than any direct or substantive act of transporting or
possessing contraband liquor.
7.It is further disclosed in the order-sheet dated 23.12.2025
that the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner under
Section 37 of the Police Act could not be executed and was
returned unserved. In light of this unexecuted warrant, the
learned Magistrate, instead of issuing a fresh warrant or
adopting alternative procedural measures to secure the
petitioner’s presence, deemed it expedient to initiate
proceedings for declaring the petitioner an absconder.
8.Upon careful reflection of the factual backdrop and
procedural course adopted by the learned trial court, this
Court is of the firm view that the decision to initiate
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:35:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:39:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12529] (4 of 5) [CRLMP-1399/2026]
proceedings for declaring the petitioner an absconder was
undertaken with undue haste, and in clear violation of the
procedural safeguards typically required before resorting to
such drastic measures. A declaration of abscondence
constitutes a severe coercive step, which must be preceded
by earnest and diligent attempts to secure the individual’s
presence through legally sanctioned modes. Furthermore,
the material on record, prima facie, indicates that the
petitioner’s involvement in the matter is primarily based on a
remote and derivative connection arising from the alleged
ownership or transfer of the vehicle, rather than any direct or
overt participation in the alleged act of transporting
contraband liquor.
9.In view of the above, and in an effort to strike a balance
between safeguarding the interests of the investigation and
ensuring the protection of procedural fairness, this Court
deems it just and proper to dispose of the present
miscellaneous petition with the following directions:
(a) The petitioner shall appear before the learned trial court
on or before 18.04.2026 and shall submit an application for
regular bail in accordance with the applicable provisions of
law.
(b) Upon the appearance of the petitioner before the trial
court, the proceedings initiated against him for declaring him
an absconder under Sections 82 to 85 of the Cr.P.C. shall be
immediately dropped.
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:35:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:39:13 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12529] (5 of 5) [CRLMP-1399/2026]
c) The warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall
stand withdrawn forthwith.
(d) Upon the petitioner’s appearance and submission of a
regular bail application, the petitioner shall be released on
bail on the same day, subject to the furnishing of appropriate
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate.
(e) It is further directed that, until 18.04.2026, the petitioner
shall not be arrested in connection with the aforementioned
FIR.
10. In view of the above observations and directions, the
present miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.
Consequently, the stay application and all other pending
applications also stand disposed of in the same manner.
(FARJAND ALI),J
164-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 19/03/2026 at 05:35:31 PM)
(Downloaded on 19/03/2026 at 08:39:13 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link
