Anjali Soni D/O Radheyshyam Soni W/O Shri Pradeep Vs State of Rajasthan

[2025:RJ-JP:46676]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4995/2025 Anjali Soni D/o Radheyshyam Soni W/o Shri Pradeep, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ghoshpura Colony Gwalior Police Station Kila Gate, District Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, Presently Tenant Satya Marg Ganeshpuri Colony, Police Station Galta Gate, Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶4

----Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10978/2025 Santosh Kumar S/o Shree Shiv Lal, R/o Village Chamboli Police Station Gopeshwar Chamboli, Utarakhand At Present House No B-334, Rawat Mohar Wali Gali, Colony Peera Gadhi, Police Station Miyapali Nagar, Delhi.

¶10

(At Present Confined In Jail, District Jaipur).

¶11

----Applicant

¶12

Versus

¶13

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 13577/2025 Govinda @ Govinda Chawariya @ Bhole S/o Shri Sevaram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 6/52 B New Friends Enclave Sultanpuri, Police Station Rajapark New Delhi North.

¶16

(At Present Confined In Central Jail Jaipur).

¶17

----Applicant

¶18

Versus

¶19

[2025:RJ-JP:46676] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-4995/2025]

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Applicant(s)	: Mr. Prijwal Kumar for
	Mr. Santosh Kumar Soni
	Mr. Vivek Gaur Mr. Sumer Singh Ola
For Respondent(s)	: Ms. Arti Sharma, PP
	Mr. Rhishi RajSingh Rathore,PP

¶23

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment

¶24

19/11/2025

¶25

The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicants. The accused-applicants were arrested in connection with FIR No. 0192/2024 registered at Police Station Galtagate District Jaipur City (North) for the offence(s) under Sections 302, 386, 201 of IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel for the accused-applicants has submitted that the applicants, namely Anjali Soni, Santosh Kumar, and Govinda, have been falsely implicated in the matter and are in custody ever since 10.06.2024, 10.06.2024, and 10.04.2025 respectively. It is further submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicants and that the challan has already been filed in the matter. Learned counsel has further submitted that two applicants, namely Santosh Kumar and Govinda, have not even named in the FIR and have been implicated in the matter merely on the ground that they were in acquaintance with Vijay, who is owner of the flat, and in absence of any tangible evidence, their implication in the present matter is unwarranted. It is also submitted that one of the applicant, namely Anjali Soni, alleged to be mastermind in the present

[2025:RJ-JP:46676]

[CRLMB-4995/2025]

(3 of 4)

matter. However, her husband, who was also an accused, has already been released on bail by this Court. Moreover, it is submitted that even if the prosecution story is assumed to be true for a moment, the applicants have no primary role in the present matter.

¶31

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the instant bail applications and have submitted that the allegations leveled are heinous and grave in nature, falling under Section 302 of IPC. It is further submitted that the corpse of the deceased was recovered from a nearby nala and the mobile phone recovered from the deceased reflects that ransom was demanded. It is also submitted that the applicants were traveling in the car, which was used for the commission of the offence, and the role of the applicants, namely Santosh Kumar and Govinda cannot be ignored. It is further contended that, upon perusal of evidence collected during the course of investigation, the prosecution story clearly indicates that there was a financial transaction which consequently became reason for causing death of the victim in the present matter, and the same is also corroborated from the case diary placed on record by the complainant (son of the deceased). 4. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the leveled allegations are heinous and grave in nature, falling under Section 302 of IPC, upon perusal of the case diary and evidences placed on record and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, but without commenting on the merits/demerits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the applicants on the bail.

(4 of 4)

[2025:RJ-JP:46676]

[CRLMB-4995/2025]