Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Smt. Kanya vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:32253) on 22 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:32253]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6116/2025
Smt. Kanya W/o Chenaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Nevar P.s.
Sayra District Udaipur, Rajasthan (At Present Lodged At Pali Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pritam Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
22/07/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 CrPC 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 144/2023 2. Concerned Police Station Sadari 3. District Pali 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 143, 302 & 120- B of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any Section 306 of the IPC 6. Date of passing of impugned 23.04.2025 order 2. The brief facts of the case are that Sohanlal lodged a
complaint on 05.08.2023 at Police Station Mana Sadari, wherein it
was alleged that his son Amrit and daughter-in-law Nima, both
residents of the Mundara region and engaged in manual labour,
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32253] (2 of 5) [CRLMB-6116/2025]
were lured under the pretext of employment to village Morkha.
According to the complainant, he was informed by police
authorities that on 03.08.2023, the deceased were found in
suspicious circumstances at village Gorkha. It was further alleged
that the accused persons–namely Laxman, Kanya, Pemaram,
Bhuraram, Basanti, Bhanwar, Banaram, Vaikaram, and Dhularam–
acted in concert and committed the murder of the complainant’s
son and daughter-in-law. The delay in lodging the report was
attributed to the complainant’s absence due to travel.
2.1. Pursuant to the said report, FIR No. 144/2023 was registered
at Police Station Sadar, and a formal investigation was initiated.
During the course of investigation, the complicity of accused Bhura
Ram and the applicants/accused Smt. Kanya and Smt. Vasni was
prima facie established under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, whereupon a charge-sheet was filed before the competent
court. The investigation against the remaining accused, Bhanwar
alias Amararam and Vanaram, was kept pending under Section
173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter is currently
posted for prosecution evidence. Her first bail application being
SBCRLMB No.15677/2023 was dismissed as not pressed.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out 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 bail to the accused-
petitioner and he has been made an accused based on conjectures
and surmises.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32253] (3 of 5) [CRLMB-6116/2025]
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
5.1. Upon a careful and comprehensive examination of the case
record, it is revealed that the prosecution’s case is bereft of any
direct ocular testimony implicating the petitioner in the alleged
offence. The evidentiary material on record is, at this juncture,
primarily circumstantial. The plea advanced on behalf of the
petitioner–that the prosecution has failed to establish a coherent
and conclusive chain of circumstances pointing unmistakably
towards her guilt–appears, prima facie, to be well-founded.
5.2. It further merits consideration that the petitioner, being a
woman, has remained in custody for over one and a half years.
The statutory safeguard provided under the proviso to Section
437(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which mandates
preferential treatment in the matter of bail to female accused,
becomes particularly relevant in this context. The petitioner’s
continued incarceration, especially when the trial is yet to begin
and is likely to be prolonged due to the multiplicity of witnesses
and intricacies of the case, would effectively result in pre-trial
punishment, thereby infringing her constitutionally protected right
to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India.
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32253] (4 of 5) [CRLMB-6116/2025]
5.3. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment of this
Court in Sangeeta v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail
Application No.1102/2024, decided on 05.03.2024), wherein bail
was granted to a female accused taking into account the beneficial
provisions of Section 437 Cr.P.C.
6. In light of the foregoing circumstances, particularly the
gender of the petitioner, the absence of direct evidence, the
protracted period of custody, and the foreseeable delay in
culmination of trial, this Court is of the considered view that it
would be just and appropriate to extend the benefit of bail to the
petitioner, subject to the imposition of suitable conditions to
ensure her presence during trial proceedings.
7. It is nigh well settled law that at a pre-conviction stage; bail
is a rule and denial from the same should be an exception. The
purpose behind keeping an accused behind the bars during trial
would be to secure his presence on the day of conviction so that
he may receive the sentence as would be awarded to him.
Otherwise, it is the rule of Crimnal Jurisprudence that he shall be
presumed innocent until the guilt is proved.
8. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided she
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:15 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:32253] (5 of 5) [CRLMB-6116/2025]
76-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 23/07/2025 at 09:43:15 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
