Allowed

Shashi Mittal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC14 Jul 2016CRLMB/8218/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan allowed regular bail to the petitioner, an accused of abetment to suicide. The court noted the long separation between the petitioner and the deceased husband, deeming continued detention unwarranted until trial determines abetment under Section 107 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail pending trial to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Shashi Mittal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Domestic Violence | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

[1] SB CRIM. MISC. BAIL 8218/2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.8218/2016 SHASHI MITTAL Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

¶5

DATE:14.07.2016

¶6

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶7

Mr. A.K. Gupta, for the petitioner. Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. V.R. Bajwa, for the complainant. *****

¶8

Present bail application has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising out of FIR No.136/2016, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Kota, District Kota for the offence under Section 306 IPC.

¶9

Petitioner is a lady, aged 43 years.

¶10

Shri A.K. Gupta, Counsel appearing for the petitioner has stated

¶11

that there was a matrimonial dispute and a divorce petition was filed by the husband, which was dismissed on 17.05.2014. It is further contended that petitioner-wife had filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and also under the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and hence, the wife was staying away from the husband. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that husband and wife were staying apart from last six years. It is further stated that on 25.06.2016, husband of the petitioner had committed suicide leaving a suicide note stating therein that he is fed up with the litigation initiated by his wife and petitioner-wife is responsible for his death due to filing of unnecessary cases. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that petitioner-wife was well within her rights in approaching the Court for grant of maintenance.

¶12

[2] SB CRIM. MISC. BAIL 8218/2016

¶13

Considering that for sufficient long period the petitioner-wife

¶14

and the deceased-husband were staying separately, this Court is of the view that continuous detention of the present petitioner, as an under trial, is not warranted as it will be determined during the course of trial whether abetment, as defined as per Section 107 IPC, is made out or not.

¶15

Consequently, the present application is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶16

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.

¶17

/KKC/

Shashi Mittal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shashi Mittal v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hanuman Prasad Yadav andORS Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Raj Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Rahmat and Others Vs Zarena Parveen and Others

Smt Santosh and Ors. Vs Hem Singh and Ors.

Naresh Soni Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Bheru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp