Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Seema vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:27618) on 20 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:27618]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 7142/2025
Seema W/o Late Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma, Aged About 46
Years, R/o Near Maliyo Ka Nohra Nehru Road Bhilwara, At
Present R/o R.E.69 Panchwati Colony Bhilwara P.S. Kotwali
District Bhilwara Rajasthan
(Presently Detained In Central Jail Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma
Mr. Avinash Bhati
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shri Ram Choudhary, Public
Prosecutor
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
(VACATION JUDGE)
Order
20/06/2025
This 2nd application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439
Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in
connection with F.I.R. No.61/2025, registered at Police Station
Railmagra, District – Rajsamand for offences under Sections
308(2), 308(5), 308(6), 308(7), 127(2), 140(3), 142 & 61(2)(a)
of the BNS.
The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner
being S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.3481/2025 has been
dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2025 as not
pressed and while giving liberty to move fresh bail application in
changed circumstances.
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:43:58 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27618] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-7142/2025]
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
As per the case of the prosecution, on 25.02.2025 the
complainant Rajani lodged a written report to the effect that on
23.02.2025, she and her husband Baluram Gadari were at home,
her husband received a phone call and thereafter he in frightened
condition left the home saying that he is going to Railmagra and
he did not return till night then she called her husband who stated
that one lady named Seema Sharma is blackmailing him and she
has taken money from him many times, now she is demanding
Rs.3,00,000/- otherwise she will implicate him in a false case of
rape or kill him. She has kidnapped him. Thereafter his husband
did not return home for two days. Then she asked from Kishanlal
who was a friend of her husband, who also stated that Seema
Sharma is blackmailing her husband and demanding money from
him. Her husband also told Baluram that he sent money to Seema
Sharma through Phonepe and also apprised him about the audio
recording containing the demand of money by Seem Sharma.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that accused-
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He
submitted that the petitioner-accused is a lady aged about 46
years. She has not kidnapped Baluram and has not threatened
him or demanded money from him. The whole story narrated by
the petitioner is false and fabricated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the
accused is in judicial custody since long and the trial of the case
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:43:58 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27618] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-7142/2025]
will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the accused-petitioner
may be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed
the bail application and submitted that accused has committed a
serious crime of kidnapping. The matter relates to a honey trap
by which the petitioner has kidnapped Baluram and while
threatening him to implicate in a false case demanded money
from him. Petitioner-accused has demanded an amount of
Rs.3,00,000/- from Baluram. The complainant also asked from
Kishanlal who was a friend of her husband, who also stated that
Seema Sharma is blackmailing her husband and demanding
money from him. Her husband also told Baluram that he sent
money to Seema Sharma through Phonepe and also apprised him
about the audio recording containing the demand of money by
Seema Sharma.
Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that from the
analysis of the mobile phone of Baluram, audio recording
containing demand of money and threatening of falsely implication
in false case was found therein. There are screenshots of the
payment made to Seema Sharma are on record. Therefore, he
prayed that looking to the gravity of the offence, benefit of bail
may not be extended to the petitioner.
The matter relates to a honey trap by which the petitioner
has kidnapped Baluram and while threatening him to implicate in
a false case demanded money from him. Petitioner-accused has
demanded an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from Baluram. The
complainant also asked from Kishanlal who was a friend of her
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:43:58 AM)
[2025:RJ-JD:27618] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-7142/2025]
husband, who also stated that Seema Sharma is blackmailing her
husband and demanding money from him. Her husband also told
Baluram that he sent money to Seema Sharma through Phonepe
and also apprised him about the audio recording containing the
demand of money by Seema Sharma.
This Court finds that at this stage, when the complainant,
Investigating Officer and other relevant prosecution witnesses are
yet to be examined, it cannot be said that the accused has not
committed any offence. The involvement of the accused in the
commission of offence can be ascertained only after recording of
the statements of the witnesses. No comment can be made on the
merits/demerits of the case at this stage.
Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the accused-petitioner.
The 2nd bail application is, therefore, rejected at this stage.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),VJ
231-Ramesh Goyal, P.S./-
(Downloaded on 21/06/2025 at 12:43:58 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)