[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Indu vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 February, 2026
[2026:RJ-JD:6919]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 561/2026
Smt. Indu W/o Sohan Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Bhatnokha, Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
At Present Lodged In District Jail Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailendra Gwala.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hanuman Prajapati, PP
For Complainant(s) : Mr. Piyush Chouhan.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL
Order
Conclusion of Arguments &
Reserved on : 03/02/2026
Pronounced on : 09/02/2026
1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) in connection
with FIR No.90/2025 dated 03.09.2025, Police Station Bhawanda,
District Nagaur for the offence under Section 103(1) of BNS-2023.
The bail application submitted by the petitioner before the
Additional Sessions Judge No.1, Nagaur, District Nagaur was
rejected vide order dated 05.01.2026.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false
allegations have been levelled against her. He further submitted
that the alleged incident was said to have occurred on
27.08.2025, for which FIR was lodged on 03.09.2025. The
(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:51:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6919] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-561/2026]
petitioner is in judicial custody since 13.11.2025. It is submitted
by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be
enlarged on bail for the reasons that firstly, the petitioner is not
named in the FIR; secondly, petitioner is having minor child aged
about 5 years; thirdly, Section 480(1) of the BNSS provides that
the Court should adopt liberal approach while considering the bail
application of women or child or sick or infirm; fourthly, the
principal accused in the present crime is Sohan Ram; fifthly, no
recovery has been made at the instance of the present petitioner
and all the recoveries were made at the instance of principal
accused Sohan Ram; sixthly, the Post-mortem report ('PMR')
indicates only one fracture and the same has been attributed to
Sohan Ram and not to the petitioner; seventhly, the petitioner is
implicated in the present crime only for the reason that crime is
alleged to have occurred in the house where the petitioner is
residing and for the reason that there were illicit relations between
the present petitioner and the deceased so also considering the
fact that soon before the alleged incident, a complaint was filed by
the petitioner on 21.08.2025 before police authorities; and lastly,
the CDR is not available on record. It is also submitted that there
is no eye witness and petitioner has been made accused purely on
the basis of circumstantial evidence. Charge-sheet has not been
filed under Section 61 of the BNS (old Section 120-B IPC) and
therefore, the petitioner is not found to be in conspiracy with other
co-accused in committing the crime.
Based on the above submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on
bail.
(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:51:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6919] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-561/2026]
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor so also learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the complainant vehemently opposed this
bail application and submitted that the petitioner and the
deceased had illicit relationship and when things turned sour, a
conspiracy was hatched and the petitioner called over deceased
Mukesh to her home and all the three accused including petitioner
killed him and thereafter buried the body by using JCB. They
further submitted that Rajendra and Shriram, who are last seen
witnesses saw the deceased Mukesh going to Sohan Ram's house,
who is husband of the present petitioner. The incident occurred at
around 9:00 PM and therefore, the presence of petitioner at the
time of alleged incident cannot be ruled out. In the charge-sheet
the allegation of destroying evidence and body of the deceased is
upon all the three accused including present petitioner. They also
submitted that Fard Mauka as to how the incident has occurred
was prepared at the instance of the petitioner, which further
indicates her involvement in the crime.
4. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan papers
so also the fact that petitioner is a woman, having child of 05
years of age; no recovery was made at the instance of the
petitioner; there is no eye-witness to the incident specifically
seeing the petitioner committing the alleged offence, more so, the
issue as to who caused injuries upon the deceased will be decided
by the trial court after leading of the evidence, this Court, without
expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, is of the
opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to
be accepted.
(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:51:48 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6919] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-561/2026]
5. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of
BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Indu W/o Sohan
Ram shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid
FIR; provided she executes personal bond in the sum of
Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-
each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for her appearance
before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever
called upon to do so till the completion of the trial.
6. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations
made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail
application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
(SUNIL BENIWAL),J
Rmathur/-
(Uploaded on 09/02/2026 at 03:51:48 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
