Allowed

Smt. Mathuri W/O Jairam Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Jul 2024CRLMB/1667/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for FIR No. 383/2023. Court found no credible evidence against Mathuri Devi and only unverifiable call details against Santosh Sahariya; noting custody over nine months, it enlarged all three accused on bail.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Mathuri W/O Jairam Bairwa Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1307/2024

¶3

Smt Teena W/o Narendra Bairwa D/o Brijendra, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Bairwa Bas Norangwala Thana Mahuwa District Dausa At Present Near Chatrawas Laxminagar Khudanpuri Thana Vaishali Nagar, Alwar. (At Present In Confined At Central Jail Alwar).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 1667/2024 Smt. Mathuri W/o Jairam Bairwa, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Near Chatrawas Laxminagar Khudanpuri Thana Vaishali Nagar Alwar. (At Present In Confined At Central Jail Alwar).

¶10

----Petitioner

¶11

Versus

¶12

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶13

----Respondent

¶14

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3317/2024 Santosh Sahariya S/o Amar Singh Sahariya, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Masari, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar. Presently Confined In District Jail Alwar.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶18

----Respondent

¶19

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Dileep Singh Jadaun Aatish Jain
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Sanjeev Mahla, PP
	Mr.	Surendra Singh

¶20

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

[CRLMB-1307/2024]

(2 of 4)

02/07/2024

These three bail applications have been filed by the accused petitioners in connection with FIR No. 383/2023 registered at Police Station Laxmangarh, District Alwar for offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC.

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the Public Prosecutor.

¶27

Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioner Teena has been implicated in this criminal case on the basis of alleged recovery of piece of bangle of the petitioner, though the recovery itself is doubtful. He further submits that in order to implicate the accused Teena in the present criminal case, the investigating agency has shown a motive that Teena had borrowed some loan from the deceased Akash Saxena, which is evident from the diary of the deceased which was recovered at the instance of the co-accused Narendra Bairwa. He also submits that the investigating agency has also collected the call details so as to prove the involvement of the accused petitioner Teena in the crime. It is submitted that there is no cogent evidence on record so as to convict the accused Teena in the matter.

¶28

As regards the accused Mathuri Devi is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no evidence on record in order to connect the accused petitioner Mathuri Devi with the murder of the deceased Akash Saxena in any manner. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the accused petitioner Santosh Sahariya submits that he has been implicated in the matter merely on the basis of the call details, however, the number which is shown to be of the accused petitioner is not

¶29

[CRLMB-1307/2024]

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

infact the number of the petitioner and he has been falsely implicated in the matter.

¶32

It has been submitted by counsels for all the accused petitioners that the petitioners are behind bars since long time. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor assisted by counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail applications. They submitted that there is evidence on record including the recovery of piece of bangle of the accused Teena from the spot and so also the call details of the deceased as well as the accused Teena and further the recovery of diary of the deceased at the instance of the co-accused Narendra Bairwa, which clearly connects the accused petitioners with the crime and therefore they do not deserve for indulgence of bail.

¶33

Considered the submissions made by learned counsels for both the sides.

¶34

As regards the accused petitioner Mathuri Devi is concerned, this Court after going through the challan papers, finds no credible evidence so as to connect her with the crime.

¶35

As regards the accused petitioner Santosh Sahariya is concerned, there is only call detail which has been submitted by the investigating agency to connect him with the crime, however, the number which is shown to be of the accused petitioner, could not be exactly said to be of the accused petitioner Santosh Sahariya, as there is nothing on record to establish the same.

¶36

As regards the accused Teena is concerned, though there is some evidence on record which may connect the accused Teena with the crime, but at the same time it is also brought to notice by the counsel for the petitioner that the accused Teena has given

¶37

[CRLMB-1307/2024]

¶38

(4 of 4)

¶39

birth to a child in judicial custody and keeping the child in custody alongwith mother i.e. accused Teena may not be justified.

¶40

On consideration of the overall facts and circumstances as stated above and so also the fact that all the accused petitioners are in custody for last more than 9 months, among which the two i.e. Teena and Mathuri Devi are women, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits or demerits of this case, deems just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.

¶41

Accordingly, these three bail applications are allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners namely: Teena, Mathuri Devi & Santosh Sahariya shall be released on bail provided that each of them shall furnish 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 they 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.

¶42

The Registry is directed to place a copy of this order in other connected case files.

¶43

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J

¶44

GAURAV SRIVASTAVA /12-14

Smt. Mathuri W/O Jairam Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Mathuri W/O Jairam Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanwer Singh Vs State

Sunder Pal Vs State and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Smt Teena W/O Narendra Bairwa D/O Brijendra Vs State of Rajasthan

Rameshdas S/O Late Shri Chamaklal Das Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwar Lal S/O Narayan Vs State of Rajasthan