Allowed

Babita W/O Late Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 May 2023CRLMB/2526/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application, the High Court of Rajasthan granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, allowing release on furnishing a personal bond with two sureties if she is arrested in connection with the cited FIR involving IPC offences.

What did the court decide?

Ball application allowed; petitioner to be released on bail if arrested, subject to personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and two sureties of Rs. 25,000 each.

Babita W/O Late Rajendra Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/009352]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2526/2023

¶4

Babita W/o Late Rajendra, R/o Jatgawda, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sumer Singh Ola For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

¶11

Order

¶12

04/05/2023

¶13

This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by the accused-applicant apprehending her arrest in connection with FIR No.212/2022, registered at Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 326, 34 and 354 of I.P.C.

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the accused-applicant and learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the material available on record.

¶15

Learned counsel for the accused-applicant submits that the accused-applicant is a female, who has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel further submits that as per the statements of the complainant, one grievous injury caused by a sharp edged weapon has been found on the right hand of the

[2023/RJJP/009352]

[CRLMB-2526/2023]

(2 of 3)

injured-Somdutt. In the statements of the complainants-Sonu Devi and Somdutt recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., this injury with a sharp edged weapon has been caused by the coaccused Arvind and not by the present accused-applicant. Learned counsel also submits that both the parties belong to the same family and there is a dispute pertaining to the land ongoing between the parties.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application and submits that in the statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., complainant-Sonu Devi has stated that the present accused-applicant has caused an injury to the complainantSomdutt with Kulhadi i.e. a sharp edged weapon and, therefore, the present accused-applicant should not be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that as per the FIR and the statements recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., complainant-Sonu Devi and injured-Somdutt, the sharp edged weapon injury has been attributed to the co-accused Arvind and not to the present accused-applicant and also considering the fact that there is a dispute pertaining to the land ongoing between both the parties, but without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the accused-applicant.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of accusedapplicant Babita W/o Late Rajendra , in connection with FIR

[2023/RJJP/009352]

[CRLMB-2526/2023]

(3 of 3)

No.212/2022, registered at Police Station Behror, District Bhiwadi, the accused-applicant shall be released on bail; provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- along with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigating Officer/SHO on the following conditions:-

¶27

(1) that the applicant shall make herself available for interrogation before a police officer as and when required;

¶28

(2) that the applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer; and

¶29

(3) that the applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court.

¶30

Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. They are only prima-facie observation and the same shall however, not come in the way of the trial Court to take independent view of the matter, based on ocular and oral evidence, while finally deciding the case.

¶31

(ASHUTOSH KUMAR), J

¶32

AARZOO ARORA /105

Babita W/O Late Rajendra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita W/O Late Rajendra 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

Kailash S/O Kalu Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogesh Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Hanuman Prasad Sharma, Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammad Mosin S/O Mohammad Rafiq Vs State of Rajasthan

Irfan S/O Asar Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Vishvendra S/O Amarchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Vijay Kumari W/O Sh. Rakesh Raman Vs State of Rajasthan