[2025:RJ-JP:35310] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 2nd Bail Application No. 6525/2025 Smt Sita Devi S/o Shri Brajesh Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 46 Maruti Vihar Mundiaramsar, Police Station Bindayaka, Jaipur West. (Petitioner Confined Distt. Jail Jaipur). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D.S. Bagadia For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Dhakar, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 03/09/2025 1. This second bail application has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, on behalf of the petitioner, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.156/2024 registered at Police Station Bindayaka, District Jaipur West (Raj.) for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After completion of investigation, police filed charge-sheet in this matter. 2. The first bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by this court vide order dated 02.12.2024 while giving liberty to renew the prayer for bail after consideration on charge. Now, this second bail application has been preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that medical expert of this case has been examined during the course of trial wherein it has been stated by him that injuries sustained to the [2025:RJ-JP:35310] (2 of 2) [CRLMB-6525/2025] deceased are not the cause of death. It is submitted that as per medical report, cause of death is asphyxia brought about as a result of ante-mortem smothering. It is contended that there is bleak chance of culmination of trial in near future as till date, only 12 witnesses have been examined out of 27 cited prosecution witnesses. Counsel submits that petitioner is mother of the deceased and she is in custody since 21.05.2024. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 4. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the bail application. He submits that petitioner is sole accused and she caused as many as 27 injuries on the person of the deceased which are noted by the medical board at the time of post-mortem. 5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the arguments advanced at bar, especially considering the material available on record in the form of charge-sheet including testimony of the witnesses recorded so far, so also considering the role attributed to the petitioner as well as looking to the nature and gravity of offence, this court in not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 6. Accordingly, this second bail application is dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinabove are only for decision of the instant bail application and would not have any impact on the trial of the case in any manner. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /77