High Court affirms, relying on Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, that courts possess discretion to issue bailable warrants in appropriate cases, especially where the accused are joined under Section 319 CrPC despite earlier non-charging after investigation. Judgment provides binding authority for bail applications seeking conversion of non-bailable to bailable warrants in similar procedural contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRLMB/13620/2025 of GHAMANDI S/O ARJUN LAL Vs THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN |
| CNR | RJHC020894312025 |
| Date of Registration | 14-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | SAMEER JAIN |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | S.B. |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Rajasthan; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms principle in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure; Bail jurisprudence; Section 319 CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether courts can convert non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants in cases where an accused is summoned under Section 319 CrPC despite not being charge-sheeted after repeated investigations |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Where accused are summoned by issuing arrest warrants under Section 319 CrPC, and repeated investigations have not resulted in their being charge-sheeted, the court may exercise its discretion, relying on binding precedent, to convert non-bailable warrants into bailable ones. The court directed that the applicants should appear before the trial court, and protected them from coercive action till such date, emphasizing that trial courts possess discretion in procedural matters regarding issuance of warrants, in light of previous Supreme Court pronouncements. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. (SLP (Crl.) No. 3658/2004) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
FIR registered under Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 452, 354, 336, 379 IPC; two investigations resulted in applicants not being charge-sheeted; on a Section 319 CrPC application and consideration of evidence, court summoned applicants as accused and issued non-bailable warrants. The next date before the trial court was 01.11.2025. Applicants sought conversion of non-bailable to bailable warrants. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, trial courts outside Rajasthan |
| Follows | Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that bailable warrants may be issued instead of non-bailable warrants when an accused is summoned under Section 319 CrPC, especially where multiple investigations have not resulted in filing of a chargesheet.
- Affirms the trial court’s discretion to avoid unnecessary hardship or coercion at the stage of summoning newly arraigned accused.
- Interim protection against coercive action can be sought until first appearance before the trial court.
- The judgment may be cited to seek conversion of non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants in analogous factual situations, relying specifically on prior Supreme Court authority.
- Lawyers should highlight if the accused was not originally charge-sheeted despite repeated investigations, as this factor has guided the discretion in conversion of warrants.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that after two investigations, applicants were not charge-sheeted and were summoned only on a Section 319 CrPC application based on eye-witness statements and other evidence.
- The court relied upon the Supreme Court precedent in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal & Ors., emphasizing the principle that courts may exercise discretion in the mode of securing attendance of accused.
- The judgment underscored that converting non-bailable warrants into bailable warrants is appropriate in such circumstances to balance the need for appearance with protection against undue hardship.
- The court disposed of the bail application with directions: the applicants must appear on the specified date; the trial court retains liberty to take an appropriate decision; no coercive action till next hearing.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Two investigations resulted in no chargesheet against applicants.
- Applicants were summoned as accused only on an application under Section 319 CrPC based on subsequent evidence.
- Non-bailable warrants were issued by the court for appearance.
- Sought conversion of non-bailable warrants to bailable warrants in accordance with Supreme Court principles.
Respondent (State):
- The record does not indicate any opposition as noted in the judgment text.
- No further respondent arguments are detailed in the judgment.
Factual Background
FIR No. 83/2020 was registered at Police Station Malarna Dungar, District Sawai Madhopur, invoking Sections 143, 323, 341, 427, 452, 354, 336, and 379 of the IPC. The applicants were not charge-sheeted after two separate investigations. Upon an application under Section 319 CrPC—and based on statements of eye-witnesses and other evidence—the trial court found sufficient material to summon the applicants as accused, and issued non-bailable warrants for their attendance. The applicants sought judicial relief for conversion of these warrants.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 319 CrPC: Discussed in the context of summoning additional accused upon evidence emerging during trial; the use of arrest warrants for securing their presence.
- Section 482 BNSS (in place of CrPC): Application filed under this section seeking conversion of warrant type; reflects the court’s inherent powers to ensure justice and prevent abuse of process.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed that, pending appearance before the trial court, no coercive action be taken against the applicants, thereby providing interim protection in such procedural circumstances.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms existing Supreme Court precedent regarding court discretion in the issuance of bailable versus non-bailable warrants, particularly when accused are summoned under Section 319 CrPC.