Kumari Pinki @ Papita D/O Sh. Lakharam Vs State of Rajasthan

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:44223]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Third Bail Application No. 13754/2025

¶4

Kumari Pinki @ Papita D/o Sh. Lakharam, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Kishanpura, Police Station Sadar, Neem Ka Thana, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana)

¶5

Kumari Raju D/o Sh. Lakharam, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Kishanpura, Police Station Sadar, Neem Ka Thana, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) (At Present Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana)

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Kumar Jakhar For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP with Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Asstt. G.A.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

04/11/2025

¶14

This third bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.93/2024 registered at Police Station Neem Ka Thana Sadar, District Neem Ka Thana (Raj.) for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 447, 307, 302 & 336 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307, 302 & 336 of IPC.

¶15

The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioners was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 12.12.2024

[2025:RJ-JP:44223]

[CRLMB-13754/2025]

(2 of 3)

while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after recording testimony of three injured witnesses namely- Munni Devi, Sunita Devi & Kamla Devi. Thereafter, second bail application was preferred on behalf of the petitioners when the aforesaid witnesses were examined however, same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 11.07.2025. Now, this third bail application has been preferred.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that it appears from the testimony of the injured witnesses that there is no specific allegation against the petitioners of causing injury on the body of the deceased persons. It is submitted that cross-cases have been registered between the parties on account of land dispute. It is contended that trial will take considerable time in its conclusion. Counsel further submits that petitioners are female and they are in custody since 28.02.2024. Further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶21

Learned State Counsel opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. He submits that second bail application of the petitioners was dismissed on merits and as such there is no substantial change in circumstances after rejection of the second bail application. He submits that it is a case of double murder. It is submitted that several injuries were noted by the medical expert on the body of the deceased persons at the time of post-mortem which shows that petitioners have actively participated in commission of crime. Counsel further submits that

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:44223]

[CRLMB-13754/2025]

apart from deceased persons, witnesses have also sustained injuries.

¶26

I have considered the contentions.

¶27

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, especially considering the fact that after rejection of the second bail application, which was dismissed after considering the testimony of three injured witnesses, there is no substantial change in circumstances, as also considering the fact that it is case of double murder as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court does not find any good ground to change its earlier view.

¶28

Accordingly, this third bail application stands dismissed.

¶29

The observations made hereinabove is only for decision of

¶30

the bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner.

¶31

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶32

LALIT MOHAN /7

Kumari Pinki @ Papita D/O Sh. Lakharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kumari Pinki @ Papita D/O Sh. Lakharam v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Krishna Vidya Mandir Samiti Vs University of Raj and Ors.

Sandeep Golechha Vs Raj State Sports Councilandors

Jairam Devasi S/O Mangilal Devais Vs C.B.N.

Komal Kumari Giri Daughter of Shri Ram Janam Giri Vs Union of India

Smt. Anuja Meena W/O Shri Kaluram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Smt. Mamta Jangid W/O Chhaju Ram Jangid Vs State of Rajasthan