[2025:RJ-JP:14472] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 330/2025 1. Kaluram S/o Gheesa Ram, R/o Solawata, Police Station Narena District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake District Jaipur) 2. Radha Devi W/o Rodu Ram, R/o Solawata, Police Station Narena District Jaipur. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Sambhar Lake District Jaipur) ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through PP ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shriram Dhakad, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 28/03/2025 1. Counsel for the petitioners seeks withdrawal of this bail application qua accused-petitioner No. 1 i.e. Kaluram S/o Gheesa Ram with liberty to renew the prayer of bail in changed circumstances. 2. Permission sought for is granted. 3. Accordingly, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn qua accused-petitioner No. 1 i.e. Kaluram S/o Gheesa Ram with liberty as prayed. 4. So far as accused-petitioner No.2 Radha Devi W/o Rodu Ram is concerned, she has preferred the instant bail application under Section 483 of BNSS. She is arrested in connection with FIR No.231/2024 registered at Police Station Narena, District Jaipur [2025:RJ-JP:14472] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-330/2025] Rural (Raj.) for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 331(8), 103(1) & 351(3) of BNS and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act. Later on, police filed charge-sheet in this matter for the offences punishable under Section 103(1), 61(2)(a) & 238(a) of BNS. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has falsely been implicated in this case. Counsel submits that in FIR, there is no allegation against the petitioner. Petitioner No.2 is a female and in custody since 20.11.2024. It is contended that petitioner is having two month’s old baby with her. It is contended that investigation has been completed. Charge-sheet has been filed and trial will take time in its conclusion. Further custody of the petitioner would not serve any fruitful purpose. 6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. 7. I have considered the contentions. 8. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case; considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, especially the fact that petitioner is a female; she is alongwith two months’ old child in custody; investigation has been completed and trial will take time in its conclusion, but without commenting anything on the merits/demerits of the case, I deem it fit and proper to allow this bail application qua petitioner No.2. 9. This bail application is accordingly partly allowed and it is directed that accused-petitioner No.2- Radha Devi W/o Rodu Ram shall be released on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) [2025:RJ-JP:14472] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-330/2025] together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) each to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court with the stipulation that she shall appear before that Court and any court to which the matter is transferred, on all subsequent dates of hearing and as and when called upon to do so. 10. The observation made hereinabove is 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 LALIT MOHAN /99