SUSHILA KUMARI AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) CONTENTION of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that father of the petitioners Shri Ram Singh had license from Controller of Explosives to manufacture the Crackers etc. and his license had expired only few months before when the police raided his house, and found accused -petitioners, their father and other family members manufacturing the Crackers. It is contended that he had already applied for renewal of the license. Petitioners No. 2 and 3 are in jail for quite some and there is no previous case registered against them. Petitioners are all women and are entitled to benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.

(3.) IN view of antecedents of petitioner No. 1 Sushila Kumari, I am not inclined to enlarge her on bail at this stage. Her bail application Under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in FIR No. 341/2010 PS Kaman, Bharatpur for offence Under Sections 147, 148, 149, 332, 353, 336, 285 and 286 IPC and Section 4/5 of the Explosive Act is accordingly rejected. However, she would be at liberty to apply for bail again before the court of sessions after filing of challan.