Smt. Chimiya Devi Alias Sumitra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5393)
2026 Latest Caselaw 1356 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Chimiya Devi Alias Sumitra vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:5393) on 30 January, 2026

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:5393]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
        S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 749/2026
Smt. Chimiya Devi Alias Sumitra W/o Shri Jagdish Kumar, Aged About
36 Years, R/o Mirapur Ps Karda District Jalore (Presently Lodged In
Women Central Jail Jodhpur)                            ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. Kalu Ram Bhati
For Respondent(s)           :     Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
                                  Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Ranawat for
                                  complainant


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order 30/01/2026 This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been

filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with

F.I.R. No.122/2025 registered at Police Station Karada, District

Jalore, for the offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of BNS.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material

available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, as per the

prosecution case, the deceased Jagdish, in the intervening night of

03.12.2025-04.12.2025, committed suicide by hanging himself.

The complainant Dinesh Kumar, brother of the deceased, alleged

in the FIR that the petitioner Chimiya @ Sumitra, wife of the

deceased, was having illicit relations with one Mangilal. It was

alleged that despite the deceased requesting the petitioner and

Mangilal to discontinue the said relationship, they continued the

same. Mangilal allegedly used to visit the house of the deceased

even in his presence and harass and threaten him.

As per the prosecution, owing to the conduct of the

petitioner, the deceased was under severe mental stress and

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:40:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5393] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-749/2026]

apprehended social disrepute. It was alleged that due to the illicit

relationship of his wife and the alleged misbehaviour by her and

Mangilal, the deceased was driven to commit suicide.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The

allegations regarding illicit relations are absolutely baseless and

have been levelled by the brother and family members of the

deceased only to falsely rope the petitioner into a criminal case. It

was submitted that there is no material on record to suggest that

the petitioner, by any act or omission, aided, instigated, or

compelled the deceased to commit suicide. Lastly, it was urged

that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial is likely to

take considerable time; therefore, she deserves the benefit of bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for

the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned

counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased had

made a last call to one Hariram and informed him that the

petitioner was harassing him, quarrelling without reason, not

providing him food, and not speaking to him. It was further

submitted that the statements of witnesses recorded under

Section 180 BNSS, including that of Hariram, clearly indicate that

due to the conduct of the petitioner and her relationship with

Mangilal, the deceased was left with no option but to end his life.

On these grounds, dismissal of the bail application was prayed for.

This Court, vide order dated 22.01.2026, directed the

learned Public Prosecutor to produce the case diary. Having

considered the rival submissions, the facts and circumstances of

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:40:02 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:5393] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-749/2026]

the case, and after perusing the case diary, this Court prima facie

finds that although the existence of matrimonial discord between

the petitioner and the deceased cannot be ruled out, there is no

material available on record to indicate that the petitioner had

instigated, aided, or compelled the deceased to commit suicide, or

had intentionally created such circumstances leaving the deceased

with no alternative but to take the extreme step. Thus, without

expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case, this

Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is

allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Smt. Chimiya

Devi Alias Sumitra W/o Shri Jagdish Kumar arrested in

connection with F.I.R. No.122/2025 registered at Police Station

Karada, District Jalore, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in

any other case, provided she furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the

satisfaction of learned trial court, for her appearance before that

court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon

to do so till completion of the trial.

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.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 71-divya/-

(Uploaded on 30/01/2026 at 04:40:02 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)