HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
SUMITRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
ORDER :
(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)
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.180/2024 registered at Police Station Bhopalgarh, Jodhpur Rural, for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5) of BNS.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
3. As per the prosecution, the petitioner and the co-accused Baby, on the date of the alleged incident, strangulated the deceased- Ramli by tying her neck with an odna.
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR and the challan papers so also the statements of Shrawan Ram, Shanti, Ram Niwas, etc. recorded under Section 180 BNSS, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not having any motive to commit the alleged crime.
5. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the challan papers and the statements of the aforementioned witnesses would further indicate that the husband of the co-accused Baby- Ramvilas was having an extramarital affair with the deceased- Ramli. The co-accused Baby was used to feel harassed and humiliated by the behaviour of the deceased- Ram
The presumption of innocence prevails at the pre-conviction stage, necessitating bail when evidence is insufficient to justify continued custody.
Bail granted due to lack of direct evidence and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing that CDRs cannot solely support a conviction.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence of motive and prolonged judicial custody, emphasizing the right to timely trial.
The absence of eyewitness testimony and hostile witnesses justifies granting bail, particularly in cases with circumstantial evidence and no clear motive.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence supporting allegations against the petitioner, emphasizing the context of prior relationships and lack of incriminating materials.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
The absence of mens rea or intention to instigate suicide under Section 306 IPC justifies the grant of bail.
The court granted bail due to insufficient evidence linking the petitioner to the crime and the lengthy duration of judicial custody.
The court ruled that lack of evidence for intent to instigate suicide justifies granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The court granted bail due to contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements, suggesting possible false allegations, and no risk of influencing witnesses or fleeing from justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.