Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Omwati W/O Shri Ratan Singh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 11 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Fifth Bail Application No.
11627/2021
Smt. Omwati W/o Shri Ratan Singh, R/o Vill. Sabora Ps Kumher
Dist. Bharatpur Tenant House Of Ajab Singh Subhash Nagar
Colony Police Kotwali Bharatpur At Present In Central Jail Sewer
Dist. Bharatpur
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harendra Singh through VC
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Upman
For State : Mr. Sher Singh Mahla, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
Judgment / Order
11/08/2021
1. Petitioner has filed this fifth bail application under Section
439 Cr.P.C.
2. F.I.R. No.732/2017 was registered at Police Station Mathura
Gate for offence under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 341, 307,
302, 336 I.P.C.
3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that after
rejection of the fourth bail application on 08.09.2020, bail
application of co-accused Vijay Pal has been allowed by Co-
ordinate Bench on 09.10.2020. Initially the case of prosecution
was that petitioner alongwith Guddi was sitting at a tea shop and
she informed to the shooters about the whereabouts of the
deceased. It is also contended that later on, presence of petitioner
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-11627/2021]
was shown at the place of occurrence by the injured witness
Gajendra. Petitioner has remained in custody for a period of three
years and ten months. It is further contended that out of fifty two
witnesses, statement of only twenty eight witnesses have been
recorded. There is no allegation against the petitioner of causing
any injury to the deceased. No overt act is assigned to her. The
mobile which was recovered from the petitioner did not have any
call detail, linking the petitioner with the co-accused.
4. Learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the complainant
have vehemently opposed the fifth bail application. It is contended
that earlier bail applications were rejected by the Court on merits.
There is no change in circumstance necessitating entertaining the
fifth bail application, since fourth bail application was rejected on
08.09.2020. It is also contended that out of fifty two witnesses,
many witnesses have been recorded of the prosecution. Delay, if
any, is made by the side of petitioner. It is further contended that
police submitted negative final report against co-accused Vijay Pal,
who has been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.
It is further contended that petitioner has another case of Section
307 IPC registered against her, in which she has been charge-
sheeted.
5. I have considered the contentions.
6. Taking note of the fact that petitioner has remained in
custody for a period of three years and ten months, she is a
female, no overt act is assigned to her in the present case, co-
accused Vijay Pal against whom there was allegation has been
given benefit of bail, after rejection of the fourth bail application
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-11627/2021]
by this Court, there is variance in the prosecution story, earlier the
presence of the accused was shown at the tea shop and later on
presence of accused according to witness is shown at the place of
occurrence and conclusion of trial will take time, hence, I deem it
proper to allow the fifth bail application.
7. This fifth bail application is, accordingly, allowed and it is
directed that accused-petitioner shall be released on bail provided
she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-
(Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to the satisfaction
of the trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before
that Court and any Court to which the matter be transferred, on
all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do
so.
(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
ARTI SHARMA /39
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
