1

In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur

Bench Jaipur

O R D E R

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No.9319 of 2014

Reenu Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan

Date of Order :::

26.08.2014.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia

Mr. Budharam, husband of the petitioner in person

Mr. Madan Lal, Assistant Director [Prosecution] for the State

***

The lawyers are stated to be on indefinite strike.

Perused the contents of the instant application.

Instant application has been preferred under Section

438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in a

case arising out of F.I.R. bearing No.147/2014, registered at

Police Station Thoi, District Sikar Rural for offences punishable

under Sections 323, 341 and 326 I.P.C.

In the present case, occurrence pertain to

21.06.2014, qua which two F.I.Rs. have been registered

containing version and cross-version.

It is alleged in the above said F.I.Rs. that petitioner,

Reenu Devi, along with her husband, Budhram, brother-in-law

Raju and his wife came to the land of complainant and had made

an attempt to uproot the stones fixed in the land. Due to protest

made by the wife of complainant, it is alleged that co-accused of

the petitioner, Raju had given an injury with fawada [spade] to

2

Sharda. Injured – Sharda, in her statement recorded under

Section 161 Cr.P.C. stated that the petitioner had caused tooth

bite on her ear and had cut the portion of her ear.

On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the

injury given by tooth bite will fall within the ambit of Section

325 I.P.C.

Be that as it may, it is recorded in the impugned

order that the injured - Sharda gave an affidavit stating therein

that the injury which has been declared grievous in nature has

been caused by Raju, co-accused of the petitioner.

On both the counts; i.e. the injury attributed to the

present petitioner will fall under Section 325 I.P.C., which is

bailable offence; and the injury later-on is attributed to Raju co-

accused of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that in a case

of version and cross-version, custodial interrogation of the

petitioner, who is a lady is not warranted.

Consequently, the present application is accepted

and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall

be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer.

She shall undertake to abide by the conditions specified under

Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. and shall appear before the Investigating

Officer as and when called for.

[ Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia ] J.

ashok/Certificate - All corrections have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

3

Ashok Kumar Songara/P.A.cum J.W.