SMT. GEETA DEVI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for petitioner Snit. Geeta Devi, learned PP for the State as well as learned counsel for the complainant and have also perused the relevant documents placed before me.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended that co-accused Ramkumar and Chimnaram have been admitted to anticipatory bail in this case by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No.1 Sikar vide order dated 17.5.2005 and Amarchand husband has been enlarged on bail under Section 437 Cr.P.C, there is no specific allegation of cruelty or maltreatment against the petitioner so, the petitioner who is a lady and mother-in-law of complainant Smt. Sumitra may be enlarged on hail. Learned PP as well as learned counsel for the complainant have both opposed the bail application.

(3.) Without making any observation on the merits of this case at this stage, but having regard to the submissions made at the bar, the nature of accusation against the petitioner, the materials collected so far during the course of investigation, the fact that she is a woman and all other facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to grant the indulgence of pre-arrest bail to her.