Rajasthan High CourtBanshi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan & Anr on 26 March, 2015Author:M.N. BhandariBench:M.N. BhandariIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2642/2009
Banshi Lal
Versus 
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
DATE OF ORDER      :       26/03/2015
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

Mr. Anil Upman, for petitionerMr. Sudesh Saini, P.P., for the State 
Mr. Rajneesh Gupta, for non-petitioner 
***	
	By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 2nd July, 2009, passed by the appellate court while dismissing the appeal.Learned counsel for petitioner submits thatSection 229AIPC has been invoked, whereas it was not applicable in view of release of the petitioner with securities. The court below failed to consider the reason of absence of the accused on the date of pronouncement of order of conviction. It was specifically mentioned and informed to the court by submitting application through the counsel. The petitioner had to proceed to Ahmedabad due to death of his relative. It was considered but denied on the ground that information is not specific.  Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the order dated 2nd July, 2009 and further proceedings for offence underSection 229AIPC be quashed.I have considered the submission made by the counsel and perused the order.The first issue is in reference toSection 229AIPC. According to the petitioner, it is made out only when accused remain absent after release on bail or bond without securities. In the instant case, the release of the petitioner was with securities. To appreciate the argument aforesaid, I do not find either pleading or any material to show that release of the petitioner was with securities. In absence of pleading and material, argument aforesaid cannot be accepted. If the petitioner was released with securities, the fact could have been pleaded with material. Thus, first argument raised by the counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted in absence of material.The second ground is regarding justification for absence. The court below has considered the application where petitioner gave reason of his absence. It was to participate death ceremony of his relative and that too, at Ahmedabad. The aforesaid reason was found to be vague as the application was not narrating as to who has died with relation and when death took place and other information supported by an affidavit. In absence of it, if court has refused to consider the vague plea of absence, I do not find any illegality in the order. In view of the above, I do not find that a case is made out to cause interference in the order dated 2nd July, 2009. The petition to challenge the said order is accordingly dismissed.[M.N.BHANDARI], J.FRBOHRA/2642CMP2009.doc


Certificate:All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.FATEH RAJ BOHRA, Sr. P.A