Allowed

Guddibai Wife of Ghanshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Jul 2023CRLMB/1726/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a bail application filed by a female accused, Guddibai, charged with murder under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The court granted bail emphasizing that the case relied on circumstantial evidence, the key witness supported the defense during trial, and the petitioner had been in custody since December 2020.

What did the court decide?

Accused-petitioner released on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/ and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/ each conditioned to appear in all subsequent hearings.

Guddibai Wife of Ghanshyam Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1726/2023

¶3

Guddibai Wife Of Ghanshyam, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Borekhedi Presently Near Thana Sarola, Sarolakalan District Jhalawar ( Presently Confined In District Jail Jhalawar)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saurav Harsh, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Mahla, PP Mr. Mukesh Kumar Saini

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶10

O R D E R

¶11

Order pronounced on ::: 27 /07/2023 Order reserved on ::: 21/07/2023

¶12

The instant application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed on behalf of the petitioner who is in custody since 09.12.2020 in connection with FIR No.306/2020 registered at Police Station Sarolakalan District Jhalawar for offences under Sections 302, 34 IPC.

¶13

Learned counsels for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. He submit that entire prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence and no incriminating circumstances are appearing on record against the petitioner. It is further submitted that absolutely false case has been prepared by the police against the petitioner. It is further

¶14

[CRLMB-1726/2023]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

submitted that on the date of arrest, no evidence was available on record against the petitioner. He further submits that statement of so-called last seen witness Ram Bharos was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the police on 14.12.2020 after arrest of the petitioner, so it is apparent that his statement was recorded only to implicate the petitioner. He further submits that the said witness Ram Bharos has also been examined during trial in which he did not support the prosecution case and declared hostile by the prosecution. The petitioner is a lady and is in custody since 09.12.2020 and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. He thus, prays that the bail application may be allowed and the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail applications and submit that the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. preferred by the co-accused Shyam has already been denied by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.08.2021. They thus, sought dismissal of the bail applications.

¶18

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.

¶19

Having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties more particularly the fact that the petitioner is

¶20

[CRLMB-1726/2023]

¶21

(3 of 3)

¶22

a lady and the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence and that last seen witness Ram Bharos whose statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. after the arrest of the petitioner and during trial, he did not support the prosecution case as also the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case for granting bail to the accused petitioner. In view of above, I deem it just and proper to allow the present bail application.

¶23

This bail application is accordingly, allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with 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 that she shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶25

Sudhir Asopa/144

Guddibai Wife of Ghanshyam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddibai Wife of Ghanshyam 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

Rakesh Kumar Dhanka S/O Shri Uday Chand Dhanka B/C Dhanka Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajni Kant Agrawal Son of Shri Dinesh Chandra Agrawal, Vs State of Rajasthan

Sumir Chawla Son of Shri Satinder Kumar, Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Singh Son of Shri Parvat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amar Singh Son of Bhoru Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharmendra Singh Son of Shri Ramesh Vs State of Rajasthan