- (1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 11.02.2011, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srimadhopur, District Sikar, whereby the learned Magistrate has rejected the petitioners' application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., the petitioners have approached this Court. Mr. Hari Kishan Saini, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that although a negative final report had been filed in favour of the petitioners, subsequently, the cognizance had been taken upon a protest petition filed by a third party. Therefore, the entire proceedings, pending before the trial court, are misplaced. Moreover, on an earlier occasion, the petitioners had moved an anticipatory bail before this Court. However, this Court even after giving them time to deposit the amount in dispute, had rejected their anticipatory bail application. Since the warrants of arrest have been issued against them, they moved an application under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C. However, vide order dated 11.02.2011, their application has been dismissed. Lastly, no cogent reasons have been given by the learned trial court for dismissing the application.
(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
(3.) A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that in para 4 of the impugned order, the learned trial court has clearly observed that during the pendency of the anticipatory bail, this Court had clearly given ample time to the petitioners to deposit the amount in dispute. However, they did not do so. It has also noticed the fact that the anticipatory bail was dismissed by this Court. It has further noticed the fact that the petitioners had filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, even the SLP has been dismissed. It would certainly create an anomalous situation that on the one hand, while a Coordinate Bench of this Court dismisses the anticipatory bail application, another Coordinate Bench were to interfere in the impugned order and were to convert the non-bailable warrant into bailable one. Therefore, this Court finds neither any illegality, nor any perversity in the impugned order. Moreover, this Court is not inclined to convert the non-bailable warrants into bailable one.;