Partly allowed

Smt Mithlesh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Rajasthan HC3 Nov 2017CRLMB/10930/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order grants bail to Sunil Devi under Section 439 Cr.P.C. while dismissing the application of Mithlesh. The court noted that the FIR against Sunil Devi rested on circumstantial evidence, whereas the case against Mithlesh relied on her alleged role in murdering her husband.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Sunil Devi on personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each. Bail application of Mithlesh dismissed.

Smt Mithlesh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 10344 / 2017

¶3

Sunil Devi W/o Shri Sitaram B/c Aheer, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Badbar, Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Raj. (At Present in Sub Jail Khetri, Jhunjhunu).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail No. 10930 / 2017 Smt. Mithlesh W/o Ram Mehar @ Rambeer B/c Rajput, R/o Badbar, Police Station Buhana, Distt. Jhunjhunu (raj.) (at Present Confined in Sub Jail Khetri)

¶10

----Petitioner Versus

¶11

State of Rajasthan Through P.P.

¶12

----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gajanand Yadav & Mr.Ravi Jangir For Respondent(s) : Mr.Sudesh Saini,PP

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI

¶14

Order

¶15

03/11/2017

¶16

Petitioners have filed these bail applications under Section 439 of Cr.P.C.

¶17

F.I.R. No.94/2017 was registered at Police Station Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) for offence under Sections 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C.

¶18

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there is no specific allegation against petitioner-Sunil Devi. She was not present at the time when the deceased was murdered. With regard to petitioner-Smt.Mithlesh it is contended by the counsel

¶19

(2 of 2)

¶20

[CRLMB-10344/2017]

¶21

that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. There is no circumstance which points towards the guilt of the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner has young children. If she is kept in custody it will have a negative impact upon the children.

¶22

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. His contention is that petitioner-Smt.Mithlesh has murdered her husband in connivance with her paramour.

¶23

I have considered the contention the contentions.

¶24

Considering the contentions put-forth by the counsel for the petitioner, I deem it proper to allow the S.B.Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.10344/2017 of petitioner-Sunil Devi and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) and two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/(Rupees Twenty Five thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶25

However, S.B.Criminal Misc.Bail Application No.10930/2017 of petitioner-Smt.Mithlesh is dismissed.

¶26

Copy of this order be placed in the connected files.

¶27

(PANKAJ BHANDARI), J.

¶28

teekam/4-5

Smt Mithlesh v. State of Rajasthan through Pp

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Mithlesh 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 Sahay Sharma and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Ravi Bal Niketan Vidhyala and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Vishnu Pareek @ Arun Pareek Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Madan Lal Sharma Vs Sazid and Anr.

Nasiruddin Vs Mohammed Shahzad

Rakesh Kumar Kakraliya Vs State of Raj and Ors.