Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Shakila vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27126) on 13 June, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:27126]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4976/2025
Shakila W/o Shri Vishnudutt, Aged About 32 Years, R/o- Chak 6
J K M, Police Station Jetsar, Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri
Ganga Nagar ,rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.R. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Narendra Gehlot, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
13/06/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C./482 BNSS at the
instance of accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter
are tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 25/2025 2. Concerned Police Station Jetsar 3. District Sri Ganganagar 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Under Sections 333, 115(2). 190, 191(2) of BNS 5. Offences added, if any Under Sections 109, 126(2), 117(2), 3(5) of BNS 6. Date of passing of 22.04.2025 impugned order 2. Having apprehension of being arrested in the afore-
mentioned matter, the petitioner has prayed for anticipatory bail
on the ground that no case for the alleged offences is made out
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27126] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-4976/2025]
against him and his incarceration is not warranted. There are no
factors at play in the case at hand that may work against grant of
anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner and he has been made
an accused based on conjectures and surmises.
3. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail
application and submitted that the present case is not fit for grant
of anticipatory bail.
4. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties
and have perused the material available on record. The allegations
of causing injuries to the victim, Devilal, are against the principal
accused Surender, and the petitioner is said to have accompanied
him at the time of the incident. She is a household lady and is
ready to cooperate with the investigation. The present case is not
one where custodial interrogation would be required. There is
nothing to be recovered from her.
5. Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case,
it is deemed suitable to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner in the present matter.
6. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed. The S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the
concerned Police Station is directed that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner in connection with the FIR, details of which have
been given in tabular form above, he shall be released on bail,
provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the
satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:17 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27126] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-4976/2025]
Police Station on the following conditions:-
(i) that the petitioner shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) that the petitioner 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 him from disclosing such facts to
the court or any police officer, and
(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without
previous permission of the court.
(FARJAND ALI),J
132-love/-
(Downloaded on 16/06/2025 at 09:41:17 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)