Allowed

Sunita v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Apr 2024CRLMB/193/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court allowed the petitioner's custody bail in a murder case (IPC 302) despite opposition, citing prolonged incarceration, slow trial pace, and special consideration for the female accused. Bail granted on a personal bond.

What did the court decide?

Enlargement on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Sunita Vs State of Rajasthan — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:15740]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 193/2023

¶4

Smt. Sunita W/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Bhauva Mahadev Phala Police Thana Rishabhdev District Udaipur. (At Present Lodged In District Jail, Dungarpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Nonepresent
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Abhishek Purohit,AGA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

¶11

Order

¶12

09/04/2024

¶13

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by way of filing an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. at the instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below:

¶14

S.	Particulars of th	e Case
No.
1.	FIR Number	247/2022
2.	Concerned Police Station	Rishabhdev
3.	District	Udaipur
4.	Offences alleged in the FIR	302,34,449 of IPC.
5.	Offences added,if any	--
6.	Date ofpassingof impugned order	23.12.2022

¶15

It is averred in this criminal misc. bail application that no

¶16

case for the alleged offences is made out against the petitioner and her incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at

[2024:RJ-JD:15740]

[CRLMB-193/2023]

(2 of 3)

play in the case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-petitioner and she has been made an accused based on conjectures and surmises.

¶21

Contrary to the averments made in the bail application, learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the bail application and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of accused on bail.

¶22

I have considered the averments made in the instant bail application as well as the submissions made by learned Additional Government Advocate and have perused the material available on record.

¶23

It is emanating from the record that the petitioner is behind the bars in the matter since 01.11.2022. She is a middle-aged household wife. As per the allegations levelled by the prosecution witnesses viz. Gotamlal and Panudi, the accused persons viz. Shyamlal, Hajarilal and the present petitioner-Sunita made an assault over Labhchand, who happened to be the son of Panudi, and as a consequence of which, Labhchand passed away. Whereas, in the postmortem report, the medical board noticed 2 lacerated wound, 6 simple bruises and 2 other abrasions, however, the cause of death could not be find out. A perusal of the challan papers, revealing that no specific act or over act have been attributed to the petitioner. She is a lady and behind the bars for more than 1 year. There is special provision under Section 437 of Cr.P.C. suggesting taking of a lenient view in granting bail to a lady, sick, infirm and a boy below the age of 16 years. The rider contained under Section 437(i) of Cr.P.C. does not apply when it

[2024:RJ-JD:15740]

[CRLMB-193/2023]

(3 of 3)

comes to the consideration of the bail of a lady. The petitioner is behind the bars since long and there seems no possibility of early culmination of the trial in a near future. Looking to the snail’s pace progress of the trial, it can be assumed that further more time shall be taken in reaching of the trial to a legitimate conclusion. Delay in trial always infringes fundamental right of an accused which is otherwise guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Here in this case, where fundamental right of the petitioner of having speedy trial has been violated as she is behind the bars since long, this Court does not feel it appropriate to allow further incarceration of a lady belonging to downtrodden family and schedule tribe. Thus, in light of these facts and circumstances, it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of bail to the petitioner in the present matter.

¶28

Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶29

(FARJAND ALI),J

¶30

Abhishek Kumar S.No.1

Sunita v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita 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

Vikram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Amra Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Udai Lal Gadri Vs State

Jagdish Vs State of Rajasthan

Harshit @ Happy Vs State of Rajasthan

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan