Allowed

Veena Chhabra v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC29 May 2024CRLMB/1364/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted bail to the petitioner, mother-in-law of the deceased, in an FIR involving offences under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, and 120-B IPC. The court considered her prolonged incarceration since 2021, her status as a woman, and specific averments against a co-accused rather than her.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 50,000 each.

Veena Chhabra Vs State of Rajasthan — Bail and Remand | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:24632]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2^nd Bail Application No. 1364/2024

¶4

Veena Chhabra W/o Late Shyam Sundar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Ward No. 52, Ravidas Nagar, P.s. Jawahar Nagar, District Sriganganagar. (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Vikas Balia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
		Mr. Sanjay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. AR Choudhary, PP
		Mr. Sudhir Saruparia

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

¶11

Order

¶12

29/05/2024

¶13

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.70/2021 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 304-B, 498-A, 120-B IPC. She has preferred this second bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶14

The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 06.09.2023.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and she is mother-in-law of the deceased. Counsel submits that till date, only six prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 13 witnesses and the petitioner is inside the jail since 08.03.2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, it is prayed that under the provisions

[2024:RJ-JD:24632]

[CRLMB-1364/2024]

(2 of 3)

of Section 437 Cr.P.C., this Court should take a lenient view in granting bail to the petitioner, who is a lady aged about 52 years. Counsel has relied upon the orders of this Court passed in SB Cr. 3^rd Bail Application No.13580/2019, Smt. Kamla Vs. State, dated 19.12.2019, SB Cr. Bail Application No.3686/2024, Sultana Begam Vs. State, dated 27.03.2024 and order of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, Bench Bengaluru passed in Cr. Petition No.2306/2022, Nethra Vs. State of Karnataka, dated 12.05.2022.

¶20

Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the second bail application and submitted that the deceased expired within eight months of her marriage and at that relevant time, the deceased was four months’ pregnant. Therefore, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner.

¶21

I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶22

Specific averment of causing gunfire shot upon the deceased was made against co-accused Anmol and not against the present petitioner. From perusal of the order-sheets of the trial court, it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses did not turn up for their evidence. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and she is inside the jail since 08.03.2021.

¶23

As per the special provision contained under Section 437 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to take lenient view in granting bail to the women, sick, infirm, and boys below the age of 16 years. Thus, keeping in view the prolonged custody period suffered by the petitioner, who is a woman, her case requires a sympathetic

[2024:RJ-JD:24632]

[CRLMB-1364/2024]

(3 of 3)

consideration for bail by virtue of the proviso to Section 437 Cr.P.C.

¶28

In the background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶29

Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Veena Chhabra W/o Late Shyam Sundar shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.70/2021 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sriganganagar provided she executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/each to the satisfaction of learned trial court for her appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.

¶30

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG),J

¶31

171-MS/-

Veena Chhabra v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veena Chhabra 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imtiyaz Ahmed Vs State of Rajasthan

Gehari Lal @ Kailash Dangi Vs State of Rajasthan

Vakeel @ Gopal Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohammed Abbas Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs State

Pooja Vs Vinod Kumar