Allowed

Meena Sahu W/O Mr. Sitaram Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 May 2020CRLMB/2374/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of Meena Sahu, mother-in-law of the deceased, in a dowry death case under Section 304-B IPC. The court deemed it just to enlarge her on bail despite opposition, directing her to furnish a bond and two sureties.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail against her personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each before trial court within two weeks.

Meena Sahu W/O Mr. Sitaram Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan — Dowry and Cruelty | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2374/2020

¶3

Meena Sahu W/o Mr. Sitaram Sahu, R/o Shrimal Colony Colony Hida Ki Mori Ramganj Jaipur (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Namish Nigotia (through Video Conferencing) For Complainant : Mr. Rajneesh Gupta (through Video Conferencing) For State Mr. Fateh Ram Meena, PP

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH GUPTA

¶9

Order

¶10

18/05/2020

¶11

This bail application has been filed under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail in FIR No. 37/2020 registered at Police Station Ramganj, Jaipur City (North) for the offence under Section 304-B IPC.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the deceased left her in-laws house on 24.1.2020 and went to her maternal home, where she taught the students in a school continuously for three days and thereafter committed suicide at her maternal home on 27.1.2020. The petitioner is mother in law. She is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this matter. She

¶14

(2 of 2)

¶15

[CRLMB-2374/2020]

¶16

is in judicial custody since long and conclusion of trial is likely to take time, hence she may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned PP appearing for the State and counsel for the complainant have opposed the same. They submit that there is ample evidence against the petitioner that she was involved in the alleged offence, hence she should not be granted bail.

¶18

Considering the material on record, submissions of learned counsel for both the parties as also taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without expressing any opinion on the merits and demerits of the case, I deem it just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶19

Therefore, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that the accused petitioner Meena Sahu W/o Mr. Sitaram Sahu be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each before the trial court, subject to its satisfaction, within two weeks after withdrawal of the order of lock-down.

¶20

If the aforesaid two sureties, as directed above, are not furnished by the petitioner within the aforesaid period, Court below would be free to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law.

¶21

(PRAKASH GUPTA),J

¶22

DK/7

Meena Sahu W/O Mr. Sitaram Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meena Sahu W/O Mr. Sitaram Sahu v. State of Rajasthan

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

Shyam Lal and Anr. Vs Ajmat Singh Thr Lrs

Ramesh Chand Agarwal Vs Mahendra Kumar Agarwal and Ors.

Jaswant Singh Meel Vs Ramniwas and Ors.

Iqbal S/O Amaru B/C Mev Vs State of Rajasthan

Shri Ramniwas@Bhagwandas B/C Julawah (Chamar) Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramniwas@Bhagwandas B/C Julawah (Chamar) Vs State of Rajasthan