Allowed¶26

Smt. Guddi W/O Late Ramveer v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Sept 2025CRLMB/11139/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail granted; Section 483 BNSS; FIR No.180/2019; Police Station Masalpur; District Karauli; Sections 323/341/302/34 IPC; woman accused; custody since 23.04.2025; Women Cell Bharatpur; eye injury not found by medical expert; co-accused Pintu @ Ajay Singh convicted u/s 302 IPC; advocate strike; Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P.; personal bond Rs.50,000; sureties Rs.25,000 each; Anil Kumar Upman, J.; order dated 12/09/2025.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted under Section 483 BNSS; petitioner to be released on furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, with stipulation to appear on all dates of hearing; observations confined to the bail application. ¶26

Smt. Guddi W/O Late Ramveer Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, arrested in connection with FIR No.180/2019 (Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 IPC, should be released on bail under Section 483 BNSS.

¶18

Court's answer

Having regard to the totality of facts — the injury attributed to the petitioner not having been noted by the medical expert, the trial likely to take considerable time, and the custody period — and without commenting on merits, the Court deemed it proper to allow the bail application.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

Bail allowed: the accused-petitioner is to be released on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the trial Court, with a stipulation to appear before that Court (or any Court to which the matter is transferred) on all subsequent dates of hearing.

¶26

Key takeaways

The observations made in the order are confined to the decision of the bail application and would not impact the trial in any manner.obiter¶27
Since advocates were abstaining from work, and in view of the Apex Court rulings that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott courts, the Court decided to pass the bail order on merits rather than adjourn.obiter¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bail allowed under S.483 BNSS — High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench (Anil Kumar Upman, J.), order dated 12.09.2025, in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11139/2025. Petitioner Smt. Guddi, a woman in custody since 23.04.2025 in FIR No.180/2019 (Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli) for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 IPC, released on bail on a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each. Grounds: the eye injury attributed to the petitioner was not found on the deceased by the medical expert; the head-injury allegation is mainly against her son/co-accused Pintu @ Ajay Singh (convicted under Section 302 IPC and reportedly granted suspension of sentence); trial expected to take considerable time. Order expressly without comment on merits and confined to the bail decision. The Court also recorded Apex Court rulings (Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal v. Union of India, (2003) 2 SCC 45; Krishnakant Tamrakar v. State of M.P.) that advocates have no right to strike, and chose to pass the order on merits as advocates were abstaining from work.

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:37141]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11139/2025

¶4

Smt. Guddi W/o Late Ramveer, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Chhendkapura, Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli (Rajasthan) (At Present Confined In Women Cell Bharatpur).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Ms. Pooja Meena, daughter of
	petitioner, present inperson
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Gaurav Gupta,Assistant GA

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶11

Order

¶12

12/09/2025

¶13

In “Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and Anr. 2003(2) SCC 45, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that lawyers have no right to go on strike or to give a call for boycott of Courts. Calls given by Bar Association or Bar Council for such purpose cannot require the Court to adjourn the matters. In “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh” decided by the Apex Court on 28.3.2018, the Apex Court has held that strike by advocates is in violation of law laid down by the Apex Court and the same tentamounts to contempt. The Apex Court has further held that the office bearers are liable to be removed from the office for passing resolution for strike. In view of the judgment of Apex Court in Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal versus Union of India and “Krishnakant Tamrakar Versus the State of Madhya Pradesh”, since

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:37141]

[CRLMB-11139/2025]

the advocates are abstaining from work today, this Court deems it proper to pass order on merits.

¶18

This bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.180/2019 registered at Police Station Masalpur, District Karauli for offences punishable under Sections 323, 341, 302 and 34 of IPC. 3. Ms. Pooja Meena, daughter of petitioner, present in person. She submits that main allegation of causing head injury is against son of the petitioner namely- Pintu @ Ajay Singh who has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. It is submitted that Pintu @ Ajay Singh has already been granted benefit of suspension of execution of sentence. Though there is allegation against the petitioner of causing injury on the eye of the deceased but no such injury was found on the eye of the deceased by the medical expert. It is further submitted that husband of the petitioner has already expired in the year 2021 and there is no one in the family to look after the family members. It is submitted that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. It is submitted that petitioner is female and she is in custody since 23.04.2025 and further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶19

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions.

¶20

I have considered the contentions.

¶21

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by daughter of the petitioner, especially considering the material available before

[2025:RJ-JP:37141]

[CRLMB-11139/2025]

(3 of 3)

me, so also the fact that injury which has been attributed to the petitioner has not been noted by the medical expert and trial will take considerable time in its conclusion as well as looking to the custody period, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶26

This bail application is accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner – Smt. Guddi W/o Late Ramveer shall be released on bail provided, she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before that Court and any Court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so.

¶27

The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶28

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶29

GAUTAM JAIN /111

Smt. Guddi W/O Late Ramveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Guddi W/O Late Ramveer v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Papparam S/O Shri Chokharam Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil Gupta S/O Shri Mahesh Chand Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan

Harindra Rathi S/O Sarjeet Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kamal Kumar S/O Gopalchand Vs State of Rajasthan

Iqbal Khan S/O Sahed Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Mahesh @ Bholu S/O Sopan Vs State of Rajasthan