Allowed

Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/O Shri Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2025CRLMB/9483/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail application by a 21-year-old female accused in an FIR for offences under BNS including murder. Court noted she was not the primary accused and injuries were attributed to co-accused; bail allowed on personal bond with two sureties without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail on personal bond of Rs.50,000 with two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.

Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/O Shri Anil Kumar Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:45636]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9483/2025

¶4

Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/o Shri Anil Kumar, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Amarpura Kalan, Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (At Present In District Jail, Jhunjhunu).

¶5

----Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Applicant(s) : Mr. Shailendra Singh Balwada, Adv.with Mr. Sohan Kumawat For State : Ms. Arti Sharma, PP with Mr. Rhishi Raj Singh Rathore, PP For Complainant : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav, Adv.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶11

Order

¶12

13/11/2025

¶13

The instant bail application has been filed under Section 483 BNSS on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant was arrested in connection with FIR No.193/2025 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for the offence(s) under Sections 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 127(2), 140(2) and 103 (1) of BNS.

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the date of the incident is 10.06.2025. It is submitted that the applicant is a female, aged approximately 21 years, pursuing her education and has been in custody ever since 16.06.2025. It is further submitted that the applicant has no criminal antecedents registered against her and the charge-sheet has already been filed. It is submitted that as per the prosecution case, a quarrel

[2025:RJ-JP:45636]

[CRLMB-9483/2025]

(2 of 3)

started at a liquor shop, following which, from some distance, the main accused, Avinash and Manish abducted the now deceased, who was an army personnel. Thereafter, the applicant was taken to the house of all the co-accused, where 21 injuries were inflicted upon the deceased. As per the post-mortem/medical report, the said injuries are the cause of death.

¶19

It is further submitted that the role of the applicant is not that of a primary accused. Even if, for the sake of argument, the prosecution version is accepted, her role is at best that of an abettor or a participant with limited involvement. Moreover, the injuries were inflicted and the recoveries of sariya (iron rod) and stick were effected from Avinash, Manish, and Jiani Devi. It is also submitted that the applicant and her entire family have been falsely implicated in the matter.

¶20

Per contra , learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant have strongly opposed the bail application. It is submitted that the death occurred on account of 21 injuries. The deceased was an army personnel. He was abducted and taken to the house of the applicant, where other family members and witnesses have supported the prosecution's version of events.

¶21

Heard and considered.

¶22

Considering the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties; the fact that the applicant is a female and is not the primary accused; that the injuries have been attributed to Avinash, Manish and Jiani Devi and that the alleged abduction and the fight with the deceased took place at a liquor shop; looking to the custody period, age of the applicant; that the case of the

(3 of 3)

[2025:RJ-JP:45636]

[CRLMB-9483/2025]

applicant is distinguishable from that of the other co-accused and considering to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of the case, this court is inclined to allow the bail application of the accused-applicant and enlarge her on bail.

¶27

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed and it is ordered that accused-applicant Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/o Shri Anil Kumar shall be enlarged on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

¶28

This Court makes it clear that no opinion is expressed on the merits/demerits of the case and the same shall not be prejudiced before the trial Court.

¶29

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶30

CHANDAN /23

Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/O Shri Anil Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms. Nitika Gajraj D/O Shri Anil Kumar 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

Bhagirath Ram S/O Shri Narayan Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Lakkhiram S/O Shri Dhannaram Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nims University Rajasthan Jaipur Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhauti Devi W/O Sampat Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deepak Kumar Meena S/O Shri Hemraj Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamal Patidar S/O Late Jiva Patidar Vs the State of Rajasthan