Mamta Alias Nathi Wife of Madanlal Vs State of Rajasthan

[2026:RJ-JP:1276]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 273/2026

Mamta Alias Nathi Wife Of Madanlal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 02, Nehara Ki Dhani, Tan Royal, Police Station Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Sub Jail, Neemkathana).

¶5

----Accused-Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 274/2026 Narayani Devi Alias Seema Wife Of Sumer, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ghata, Police Station Thanagaji, District Alwar (Raj.) (At Present Confined At Sub Jail Neemkathana).

¶11

----Accused-Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.

¶14

----Respondent

¶15

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 275/2026

¶16

1. Suman Devi @ Khushi W/o Omprakash, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bamalda, Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar (Raj.).

¶17

Kaushalya Devi W/o Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bamalda, Police Station Ajeetgarh, District Sikar (Raj.). (At Present Accused Petitioners Confined In Sub Jail Neem Ka Thana).

¶18

----Accused-Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan, Through PP

¶21

----Respondent

¶22

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Shantnu Bansal, Adv., and
	Mr. Vidhut Kumar Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Amit Punia,PP

(2 of 3)

[2026:RJ-JP:1276]

[CRLMB-273/2026]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶27

rder

¶28

12/01/2026

¶29

These bail applications have been filed under Section 483 of BNSS on behalf of the petitioners, who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.231/2025 registered at Police Station Patan (Sikar), District Sikar for offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 308(6) and 61(2) of BNS, 2023.

¶30

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the accused-petitioners have falsely been implicated in this case. Learned counsel submit that offence under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 420 of IPC) is not made out from the facts narrated in the FIR. They further submit that other offences are bailable in nature. They argue that co-accused person namely, Om Prakash has already been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. They further argue that there are no criminal antecedents against the petitioners and trial of the case will take considerable time in its conclusion. They contend that the petitioners, who are females, are in custody since their date of arrest and further custody of the petitioners would not serve any fruitful purpose.

¶31

Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶32

I have considered the contentions.

¶33

Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially the fact that petitioners are

[2026:RJ-JP:1276]

[CRLMB-273/2026]

(3 of 3)

females; co-accused person namely, Om Prakash has been granted benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court; absence of criminal antecedents and trial will take time in its conclusion as well as looking to the period of custody, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it proper to allow these bail applications.

¶38

These bail applications are accordingly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioners- (1). Mamta Alias Nathi Wife Of Madanlal, (2). Narayani Devi Alias Seema Wife Of Sumer, (3). Suman Devi @ Khushi W/o Omprakash, and (4). Kaushalya Devi W/o Prakash shall be released on bail provided, each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court with the stipulation that they 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.

¶39

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

¶40

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶41

MADAN/117-119

Mamta Alias Nathi Wife of Madanlal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Alias Nathi Wife of Madanlal 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ankit S/O Mukesh Chand Vs the State of Rajasthan

Balchand S/O Nandlal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Nikhil Nehara S/O Atar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jitendra Singh Shekhawat Vs State of Rajasthan

Aryan S/O Parshuram, Vs State of Rajasthan

Narayani Devi Alias Seema Wife of Sumer Vs State of Rajasthan