Allowed

Bimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC2 Feb 2024CRLMB/951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bail application allows the petitioner Bimla Devi's application under Section 439 CrPC for offences under the IPC. The court notes the petitioner is a lady and there is a discrepancy between the FIR allegations and injury reports regarding head injuries, ruling in her favor.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner Bimla Devi shall be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 and producing two sureties of ₹25,000 each.

Bimla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan — Cheating and Forgery | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JD:5621]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 951/2024

¶4

Bimla Devi W/o Ram Niwas, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Fogadi, Police Station Maulasar, District Deedwana - Kuchaman. (At Present Lodged At District Jail, Nagaur)

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.R. Chahar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, PP

¶10

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶11

Order

¶12

02/02/2024

¶13

The present bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) has been filed by the applicant, who is in custody in connection with the FIR No.232/2023 registered at Police Station Maulasar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that omnibus allegations have been levelled against all the persons and argued that so far as present applicant – Bimla Devi is concerned, no specific allegation of causing grievous injury has been attributed to her.

¶15

Learned counsel submitted that though in the First Information Report, an assertion has been made that the present applicant has caused head injury to Kaushalya, but, while giving

[2024:RJ-JD:5621]

[CRLMB-951/2024]

(2 of 3)

her statement under Section 161 of the Code, Kaushalya has not attributed head injury to the applicant.

¶20

Learned counsel further submitted that no article, much less lathi has been recovered from the applicant and, therefore, the applicant, who is behind bars since 17.01.2024 be enlarged on bail.

¶21

Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application by submitting that the applicant is a member of the aggressor party, who has caused multiple injury to the complainant group.

¶22

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶23

It is to be noted that though an allegation has been levelled in the written report that the present applicant has caused head injury to the injured Kaushalya, whereas the statements of the injured persons including Kaushalya does not show any injury to have been caused by the present applicant on her head.

¶24

A perusal of the injury report reveals that though injuries have been found on the head of Kaushalya and Durga Ram but such injuries have not been attributed to the present applicant. Even lathi etc. has not been recovered from the applicant.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid and considering that the applicant is a lady, this Court is inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, bearing in mind the spirit of Section 437 of the Code.

¶26

Consequently, the present bail application filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is allowed. It is ordered that the applicant – Bimla Devi W/o Ram Niwas arrested in connection with the FIR No.232/2023 registered at Police Station

[2024:RJ-JD:5621]

[CRLMB-951/2024]

(3 of 3)

Maulasar, District Deedwana-Kuchaman shall be released on bail; provided she executes a personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/and two sureties of ₹25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 11. Needless to mention that the above observations made by this Court are on the basis of material so far produced before the Court. These are only prima-facie observations 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

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶32

633-Arvind/-

Bimla Devi v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimla Devi 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

Maga Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Birbal Ram @ Om Prakash Vs State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj.Tractors and Motors Vs State and Anr.

Raj.Tractors and Motors Vs State and Anr.

Yusuf Ali Vs State of Rajasthan