VEENA CHHABRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) he petitioner has been arrested in connection with FIR No.70/2021 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sriganganagar for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 304-B, 498-A, 120-B IPC. She has preferred this second bail application under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. The first bail application was dismissed as not pressed on 6/9/2023.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a lady and she is mother-in-law of the deceased. Counsel submits that till date, only six prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 13 witnesses and the petitioner is inside the jail since 8/3/2021 and the trial of the case will take sufficient long time to be concluded. Therefore, it is prayed that under the provisions of Sec. 437 Cr.P.C., this Court should take a lenient view in granting bail to the petitioner, who is a lady aged about 52 years. Counsel has relied upon the orders of this Court passed in SB Cr. 3rd Bail Application No.13580/2019, Smt. Kamla Vs. State, dtd. 19/12/2019, SB Cr. Bail Application No.3686/2024, Sultana Begam Vs. State, dtd. 27/3/2024 and order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, Bench Bengaluru passed in Cr. Petition No.2306/2022, Nethra Vs. State of Karnataka, dtd. 12/5/2022.

(3.) Learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the second bail application and submitted that the deceased expired within eight months of her marriage and at that relevant time, the deceased was four months' pregnant. Therefore, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have perused the material available on record. Specific averment of causing gunfire shot upon the deceased was made against co-accused Anmol and not against the present petitioner. From perusal of the order-sheets of the trial court, it is apparent that the prosecution witnesses did not turn up for their evidence. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and she is inside the jail since 8/3/2021. As per the special provision contained under Sec. 437 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to take lenient view in granting bail to the women, sick, infirm, and boys below the age of 16 years. Thus, keeping in view the prolonged custody period suffered by the petitioner, who is a woman, her case requires a sympathetic consideration for bail by virtue of the proviso to Sec. 437 Cr.P.C. In the background and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the second bail application filed under Sec.439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is directed that petitioner Veena Chhabra W/o Late Shyam Sundar shall be released on bail in connection with FIR No.70/2021 of Police Station Mahila Thana, District Sriganganagar provided she executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000.00 with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000.00each 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.