[2025:RJ-JP:31574] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6940/2025 Sunita Devi @ Patasi W/o Late Shri Poornmal @ Poornaram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Seva Police Station Sadar Sikar District Sikar Rajasthan. (At Present Confined In District Jail Sikar). ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shamsul Aarefin For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/08/2025 1. This instant application for bail filed under Section 483 of BNSS by the applicant-accused Sunita Devi @ Patasi W/o Late Shri Poornmal @ Poornaram in FIR No. 468/2024 dated 01.12.2024 registered at P.S. Sadar Sikar District - Sikar, whereby the applicant-accused was charged under Sections 103(1) and 238(A) of BNS. 2. The applicant was arrested and is in judicial custody since her arrest. The Court below has dismissed the bail application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant relying upon grounds raised in bail application submits that the applicant is innocent and falsely implicated in the present case. Further, he submits that the investigation relating to present applicant-accused is complete and is no more required by [2025:RJ-JP:31574] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-6940/2025] the Investigating Agency for investigation. He further assures that in case, the applicant-accused is required for further investigation, the applicant-accused will be available for such investigation. He also submits that the investigation/trial will take its own time and no purpose will be served by keeping the applicant-accused in custody. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is wife of deceased and only on suspicion, this petitioner is arrayed as an accused. He further submitted that the report is registered by nephew of deceased and at that time, this petitioner was not in her senses as she suffered loss of her husband. He further submitted that there is not a single eye- witness to the incident and rather the case squarely rests upon circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that under the influence of family members, this petitioner was arrayed as accused and forwarded to face trial. He further submitted that petitioner is in custody since 02.12.2024 and there is no motive behind murder of deceased. He also referred statement of PW-1 Jagdish and submitted that he has also not disclosed anything against the petitioner. 5. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor. 6. Heard learned counsel for the applicant-accused and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material placed on record. 7. On the basis of report registered by complainant Prakash Kumar nephew of deceased about fighting between petitioner and her husband and death of her uncle, who is husband of petitioner, a report has been registered. During [2025:RJ-JP:31574] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-6940/2025] investigation, petitioner is arrested on 02.12.2024 and after information under Section 23 of Evidence Act, 2023 one sGI pipe used to assault deceased was recovered. The cause of death is opined by Medical Board as asphyxia due to ante- mortem smothering. This petitioner is charged under Section 103(1) and 238 of BNS. This petitioner is wife of deceased and till date only one witness has been examined therefore this is not a fit case to enlarge petitioner on bail. 8. Accordingly, bail application preferred by petitioner Sunita Devi @ Patasi W/o Late Shri Poornmal @ Poornaram is hereby dismissed. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J PREETI VALECHA /135