Allowed

Santosh Devi W/O Shri Chanduram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2024CRLMB/1215/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan granted bail to an aged petitioner charged with murder, enjoining her release on a personal bond with two sureties as there was no cogent evidence connecting her to the crime despite the incident occurring in her residence.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on bail on a personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each.

Santosh Devi W/O Shri Chanduram Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:27987]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1215/2024

¶4

Santosh Devi W/o Shri Chanduram, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Bhirani, Police Station Bhirani, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan). (At Present Confined In District Jail Jhunjhunu).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Paliwal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

¶11

Judgment

¶12

05/07/2024

¶13

Petitioner has filed this bail application in connection with under Section 439 Cr.P.C., arising out of F.I.R. No.284/2023, registered at the Police Station Pilani, District Jhunjhunu for the offence under Sections 302 & 34 IPC.

¶14

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a old lady of about 70 years of age and is behind the bars since 01.08.2023. Counsel further submits that neither there is any eye witness of the incident nor there is any cogent evidence on record so as to show the connectivity of the accused petitioner in committing murder of the deceased.

¶15

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

¶16

Considered the submissions made by counsel for the

[2024:RJ-JP:27987]

[CRLMB-1215/2024]

(2 of 2)

petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

On consideration of the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the challan papers, this Court find that the petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis that the incident of murder took place in the house where she was residing with her son and his wife but there is no any cogent connecting evidence. It is also come on record that the accused- petitioner is a 70 years old lady.

¶22

Taking into consideration the material fact that there is no cogent connecting evidence so as to connecting the petitioner with the alleged crime of murder and petitioner being an old lady of 70 years of age, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merit and demerits of the case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶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.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before that Court or any other Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶24

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶25

DIVYA SAINI /12

Santosh Devi W/O Shri Chanduram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Devi W/O Shri Chanduram 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

Mahesh @ Sonu S/O Ganpat Lal Khichi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vaishali W/O Girendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Guman Singh Son of Lamxan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Kishan Parewa S/O Sh. Harji Vs State of Rajasthan

Ramraj S/O Durgalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Pintu Rao S/O Shri Jagdish Rao Vs State of Rajasthan