[2025:RJ-JP:30782-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 60/2025 Pooja Saini Alias Bittu Daughter Of Shri Shanker Lal Saini, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Ward No.14, Opposite Maliyon Ka Mandir, Aligarh, Tehsil Uniyara, Police Station Aligarh, District Tonk, At Present Lodged In The Central Jail, Ajmer ----Appellant Versus N.I.A, Through The Special Public Prosecutor ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashvin Garg with Mr. Nonit Hatila For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sheh Deep Khyaliya HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL Order 08/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal has been filed on behalf of the accused- appellant challenging the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by learned Special Judge (NIA), Jaipur in Miscellaneous Bail Application No.09/2025 (CIS No.33/2025) by which the learned Special Judge dismissed the bail application filed by the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this matter. Counsel further submits that no prima facie case is made out against the accused-appellant. Counsel further submits that the trial has not started as yet and a list of 271 witnesses has been submitted and conclusion of trial may take long time. Counsel further submits that the appellant is a lady (wife of co-accused - Mahendra Kumar @ Sameer) and she is behind the bars for last more than one and half years. Counsel further submits that no sufficient evidence has come on record to connect the appellant with the alleged crime and prayed that the appellant be released on bail. [2025:RJ-JP:30782-DB] (2 of 2) [CRLAD-60/2025] 3. Learned Special Public Prosecutor has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the appellant in her bail application has submitted that she is not the wife of co-accused – Mahendra Kumar @ Sameer and after completion of the investigation, the Investigating Agency has submitted the charge-sheet against the appellant in the trial Court. He further submits that the appellant has helped the accused persons in preparation and committing the alleged crime. He further submits that after filing of the charge- sheet, cognizance under Section 120B read with Section 302 of IPC and Sections 18 & 20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act of 1967’) in this matter has also been taken against the appellant by the trial Court along with other co-accused persons vide order dated 09.07.2024. Counsel further relied upon the provision of Section 43-D (V) of the Act of 1967 and prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also considering the fact that after filing of the charge-sheet, the trial Court has taken cognizance against the appellant vide order dated 09.07.2024 and also considering the provisions of Section 43-D (V) of the Act of 1967, in our opinion, no case is made out to release the appellant on bail. 6. Hence, this criminal appeal is dismissed. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Sudeepak/49