Rajasthan High Court
Smt. Manfool Devi W/O Shri Balu ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 October, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous III Bail Application No. 12801/2021
Smt. Manfool Devi W/o Shri Balu Gurjar, Aged About 35 Years,
R/o Kachi Basti, Ramdev Nagar, PS Christian Ganj, Ajmer.
(At Present Confined In Central Jail Ajmer)
----Accused-Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through PP
----Non-Petitioner
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Pal Yadav
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahala, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
05/10/2021
The present third bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petitioner has been arrested in connection
with FIR No.0359/2019 registered at Police Station Christian Ganj,
District Ajmer for the offence under Section 302 IPC and later on
for the offence under Section(s) 302 & 120B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after
rejection of her first bail application, co-accused persons have
been extended benefit of bail by the co-ordinate benches against
whom charge sheet under Section 302 IPC has been filed
whereas, charge against the petitioner is framed under Section(s)
302 & 120B IPC and therefore her case is on better footing. He
submits that out of total 30 prosecution witnesses, only 11
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far and she is
behind bar since 19.07.2019. Relying on the judgments of this
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-12801/2021]
Court in cases of Chetram S/o Shri Bhomaram Vs. State of
Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2 nd Bail
Application No.7823/2020, Shakrulla S/o Shri Bhikham @
Sutti Vs. State of Rajasthan in S.B. Criminal Miscellanous
2nd Bail Application No.7363/2020 and Gyan Prakash Vs.
State of Rajasthan in Criminal Miscellaneous Bail
Application No.3661 of 1989, learned counsel for the petitioner
prayed for her release on bail.
Opposing the third bail application, learned Public Prosecutor
submitted that the petitioner happens to be the wife of the
deceased and she has hired services of co-accused persons for
committing murder of her husband and therefore, she happens to
be the main culprit. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in
the above circumstances, she is not entitled for bail on parity.
With regard to delay, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that trial
in criminal cases were being held up on account of unprecedented
conditions in the wake of Covid-19 and hence, no exception can be
taken of delay especially, where the case is of heinous nature
under Section 302 IPC wherein the petitioner is an accused of
murdering her own husband. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of
this third bail application.
Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties and
perused the record.
The petitioner is facing trial under Section(s) 302 & 120B IPC
wherein allegation against her is of hiring services of contract
killers for murder of her own husband. In these circumstances,
she cannot claim benefit of bail on parity qua co-accused persons.
In so far as delay in trial is concerned, this Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that trials have been held up in the entire state
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-12801/2021]
of Rajasthan in the wake of Covid-19. Since, the petitioner is
facing trial under a heinous offence of murder, she is not entitled
for benefit of bail on account of delay.
The third bail application is rejected accordingly.
However, looking to the length of the custody of the
petitioner, learned trial Court is requested to expedite trial of the
case and endeavour to conclude the same within a period of four
months from today.
The Registrar (Judl.) is requested to intimate the learned trial
Court accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
DANISH USMANI /09
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
