CRLMB/7639/2026 of SANJNA W/O SHRI RAMAVTAR Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN on 3 September 2026

Order

1. Date of conclusion of Arguments 01.09.2026

2. Date on which the order was reserved 01.09.2026

3. Whether the full order or only operative part is pronounced Full

4. Date of pronouncement 03.09.2026

1. This misc. bail application has been filed by the petitioner Sanjna W/o Shri Ramavtar, a female, aged about 35 years, who was arrested by the police in connection with the FIR bearing No.163/2025 dated 16.11.2025 registered at Police Station Bander Sindri, District Ajmer for the offences punishable under Sections 103(1), 115(2), 126(2) and 352 of BNS, 2023.

2. Learned counsel submits that the bail application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.1 Kishangarh, Dist. Ajmer, (Raj.) vide order dated 16.03.2026,

(2 of 4) [CRLMB-7639/2026] thereafter, the petitioner has preferred this bail application under Section 483 of B.N.S.S, 2023.

3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that police after conducting the investigation, has filed the charge- sheet on 11.02.2026 and thereafter, the learned Trial court has recorded the statement of as many as ten witnesses.

4. By referring to the contents of the FIR, learned counsel submitted that the complainant alleged that husband of petitioner namely Ramavtar caused injury to the deceased Rajpal who sustained one grievous injury on account of which he died in the hospital. Learned counsel further submitted that in the FIR the allegations against the petitioner was that she was carrying a stick by which she caused some injuries to the deceased.

5. Learned counsel further referred to the conclusion of the charge-sheet and stated that even the conclusion of charge-sheet shows that the deceased died on account of one injury as caused by Ramavtar, husband of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further referred to the statements of material witnesses and submits that none of the witnesses has made any statement which shows that the alleged single injury caused by axe (Kulhadi) was inflicted by the petitioner herein. It is only a person namely Kanha Ram, who, in his statement recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., stated that the petitioner brought the axe (kulhadi) from the house and handed it over to her husband Ramavtar, who thereafter caused the injury. Except this witness, no other witness has made any incriminating statement against the petitioner. He also referred to the statement of PW1, an

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-7639/2026] important witness who is also the complainant, namely Pradhan S/o Bhagchand and submits that this witness has failed to make any incriminating statement against the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further submitted that the statements of other witnesses as recorded by the learned Trial Court show that the incident was not witnessed by any independent person and that no witness has given any specific evidence regarding the involvement of the petitioner and of causing any injury to the deceased Rajpal. In view of the above, learned counsel prays that petitioner being a female, may be enlarged on bail as none of the material witnesses has made any incriminating statement against her.

4. Per contra, Learned Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the bail application by submitting that as per the contents of the FIR and the statement as recorded under Section 180 of B.N.S.S., the petitioner gave a lathi blow to the deceased and therefore her involvement is amply clear.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court, noted that the FIR No.163/2026 was lodged against the petitioner and her husband, and another FIR bearing No.166/2026 was lodged by the family members of the petitioner against the deceased and his family members. This Court, noted that there are certain previous dispute between the parties and on account of some sudden altercation on the unfortunate day, the entire incident took place in which her husband, Ramavtar, alleged to be in a drunken state, caused a single injury by an axe (kulhadi) to the deceased, Rajpal, who died in the hospital on account of the same. Admittedly, there are no other injuries

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-7639/2026] sustained by the deceased. None of the witnesses has been able to make any specific evidence against the petitioner herein. The version of witness Kanha Ram is also in contradiction with the statement of the complainant PW1.

7. After Considering the nature of the allegations as mentioned in the FIR, the statement of the witnesses as recorded by the Trial Court, this Court without commenting upon merits/demerits of the case, is inclined to exercise its power under Section 483 B.N.S.S. and deems it just and proper to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.

8. Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 B.N.S.S. is allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner Sanjna W/o Shri Ramavtar shall be released on bail, provided she executes a personal bond in a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.50,000/- each 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.

9. The petitioner is further directed not to take undue advantage of liberty or misuse the liberty granted by this Court. It is made clear that the observation as made by this Court in the bail application will not affect the trial of the case. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J 83/RINCHU