[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mamta vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18701) on 16 April, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:18701]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Appeal (Sb) No. 684/2025
Mamta W/o Nazeer Khan, Aged About 28 Years, Ghadoi,
Charnan, Police Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra, Rajasthan.
(At Present Lodged In Sub Jail Balotra)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Babu Ram S/o Kana Ram, Kalyanpur, Police Station
Kalyanpur, District Barmer.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Khushi Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. VS Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A. with
Mr. RS Bhati, AGA
Mr. Balaram Kumawat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
16/04/2025
1. The instant appeal has been filed under Section 14-A(2) SC/
ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act on behalf of the appellant,
who is in custody in connection with FIR No.86/2022, Police
Station Kalyanpur, District Balotra for the offences under
Sections 342, 382/34, 302/34 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v)
of SC/ST Act, being aggrieved by the order dated
24.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Balotra in Criminal Misc.
Bail Case No.447/2024, whereby the application under
Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the trial
Court.
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:37:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18701] (2 of 5) [CRLAS-684/2025]
2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the
appellant has falsely been implicated in the present case and
he has nothing to do with the alleged offence. Expeditious
culmination of trial is not a seeming fate and no fruitful
purpose would be served by keeping the appellant behind
the bars. He, therefore, prays that benefit of bail may be
granted to the appellant.
3. Per contra, learned learned Public Prosecutor has opposed
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant.
4. Learned counsel Shri Balaram Kumawat puts in appearance
on behalf of the respondent No.2. He was given full
opportunity of hearing. He does not refute the fact that two
kids are confined to jail with the appellant.
5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Public
Prosecutor and perused the material available on record.
6. The appellant in this case has been arrested on 21.09.2022.
She has two children; the elder is eight years of age and the
younger is four years of age. She had been left by her
husband therefore, both the kids are living with her in the
prison. The two kids who are behind the bars since last two
years and seven months have been deprived of their
fundamental rights, particularly, education, health, nutrition,
etc. and for no fault of them because they have not been
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:37:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18701] (3 of 5) [CRLAS-684/2025]
insinuated. They cannot be separated from their mother
owing to the reason that there is nobody to take care of
them. Leaving them outside the prison would mean leaving
them in vagrancy, starvation, and destitution. As a matter of
fact, there are 41 witnesses projected by the prosecution,
out of which till date, nine could have been examined, among
which four have turned hostile and have not supported the
story set out in the charge-sheet. Looking to the pace of the
trial, it can easily be speculated that a further long time
would spend in reaching on a legitimate conclusion of the
trial as such the right to have a speedy trial has also been
infringed.
7. Now, moving on to the merits of the case, here is the case
having no eye-witness account of the incident and the entire
case of the prosecution hinges upon certain circumstances
put forth by the prosecution based on the material collected
during investigation. One lathi alleged to be recovered at the
instance of her which was sent for serological and chemical
examination to the FSL and it is stated that a report is
received with the comment of being inconclusive. There is
other bits of circumstances causing doubt upon the petitioner
and her involvement in commission of the crime, however,
this Court is of the opinion that grave the offence greater has
to be the standard of proof and the suspicion, however, it
may grave cannot take the place of proof and the same
cannot be a substitute for a legal evidence. A perusal of the
prosecution witnesses recorded so far in the trial does not
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:37:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18701] (4 of 5) [CRLAS-684/2025]
reveal any concrete material showing the culpability of the
petitioner. The circumstances are neither definite in tendency
nor conclusive in nature as it is prima facie evaluated.
8. Be that as it may, any comment on the merits of the case
may put a serious dent on the case of the prosecution,
therefore desisting from doing so but taking into account that
two kids are languishing in jail without their fault and further
the fact that two years and seven months have expired but
the trial has not reached on to a legitimate conclusion, I feel
that a concession of bail should be granted in her favour.
Section 437 of the Cr.P.C. makes a special provision for the
grant of bail to a woman, a boy below the age of 16 years,
and weaker sections of society or infirm persons.
9. It is pleaded by the learned counsel for the appellant that the
petitioner is an indigent person having no source of income
and does not have any relative to come forward to furnish
surety for her. Ms. Kushi Sharma, learned counsel,
strenuously urged that she had been informed about the
financial status and social background of the petitioner and
she would not be able to furnish surety for her release.
10. Consequently, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned
order is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant,
named in the cause title, arrested in connection with
aforesaid FIR, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any
other case. Considering the financial constraints and her
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:37:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18701] (5 of 5) [CRLAS-684/2025]
social background and particularly, the fact that two kids are
incarcerated along with her, it is deemed appropriate to
direct the petitioner to furnish a personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- only without surety; to the satisfaction of the
learned trial Court with the stipulation to appear before that
Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called upon to
do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
137-divya/-
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:37:14 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link