Allowed

Smt. Gayatri Bai W/O Govind Prasad v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC17 Feb 2025CRLMB/15094/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The high court allowed a bail application filed for two female petitioners apprehensive of arrest. The court noted the absence of specific allegations against them, the pendency of cross-cases, and the interim relief granted previously while permitting bail on bond conditions.

What did the court decide?

The bail application allowed; petitioners directed to be released on bail upon furnishing personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs. 25,000/- each.

Smt. Gayatri Bai W/O Govind Prasad Vs the State of… — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:6900]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15094/2023

¶4

Smt. Gayatri Bai W/o Govind Prasad, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Morpa, Tehsil Deegod, District Kota (Rajasthan)

¶5

Smt. Kamlesh Bai W/o Om Prakash, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Devalimanjhi, Tehsil Kanwas, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶9

Rohit Khandav @ Raja S/o Satyanarayan Sharma, R/o Village Morpa, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota (Rajasthan).

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajneesh Gupta
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP
For Complainant(s)	: Mr. Girish Khandelwal

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order

¶13

17/02/2025

¶14

The instant pre-arrest bail application has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., on behalf of the petitioners, who are having apprehension of their arrest in FIR No. 227/2023 registered at Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308 & 504 of IPC.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. It is submitted that petitioners are female and there is no specific allegation against them. It is submitted that allegation of causing

(2 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:6900]

[CRLMB-15094/2023]

life threatening injury on the person of the injured namelySamrat Sharma is against Govind Prasad and Rohit Yadav. Counsel submits that omnibus allegations have been levelled against the petitioners. It is submitted that cross-cases have been registered between the parties. Counsel further submits that in pursuance of order dated 28.11.2023, petitioners were not arrested and there is no allegation against them of misusing the liberty. Learned counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required in this matter.

¶20

Learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant vehemently opposes the bail application. They submit that petitioners are named in FIR.

¶21

I have considered the contentions.

¶22

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and especially the fact that allegation of causing life threatening injury is against co-accused persons; petitioners were granted interim relief and there is no allegation against them of misusing the liberty; cross-cases have been registered between the parties so also considering the fact that petitioners are female as well as looking to the role attributed to the petitioners, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow the bail application.

¶23

The anticipatory bail application is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer, Police Station Sultanpur, District Kota Rural in FIR No.227/2023 is directed that in the event of arrest of

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:6900]

[CRLMB-15094/2023]

the petitioners- 1) Smt. Gayatri Bai W/o Govind Prasad & 2)

¶28

Smt. Kamlesh Bai W/o Om Prakash, they shall be released on bail, provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- each

¶29

to their satisfaction on the following conditions:-

¶30

(i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶31

(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶32

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶33

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶34

GAUTAM JAIN /34

Smt. Gayatri Bai W/O Govind Prasad v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gayatri Bai W/O Govind Prasad v. the 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

Yogesh S/O Veersingh Vs State of Rajasthan

Manoj Dholda S/O Shri Hoshiyar Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Balkishan @ Ballu Prajapat S/O Shri Gyanchand Prajapat Vs State of Rajasthan

Sunil S/O Rameshwarlal Vs State of Rajasthan

Ajay Topiya S/O Shyam Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Kailash Chand Meena S/O Shri Shrwan Lal Meena Vs State of Rajasthan