Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 20802 (RAJ)

BIRDHI BAI W/O DHANNALAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CRLMB/16864/2025 · 2026-01-12

Ganesh Ram Meena

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:1122] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 16864/2025 1. Birdhi Bai W/o Dhannalal, Aged About 67 Years, R/o Kaliyakhedi, Police Station Kanwas, District Kota, Rajasthan. 2. Krishna Meena D/o Dhannalal, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kaliyakhedi, Police Station Kanwas, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Paliwal, for Mr. Nitin Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Saini, P.P. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 12/01/2026 1. This bail application has been filed by the accused petitioner u/S 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 205/2025, registered with the Police Station, Kanwas, District Kota Rural for offence punishable u/S 189(2), 115(2), 126(2), 109(1) of B.N.S. 2023. 2. Heard. 3. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the accused- petitioner that both the accused-petitioners are women and the allegation against them is of inflicting the injury by Lathi blow. It has not been stated in the FIR that to whom the petitioners have [2026:RJ-JP:1122] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-16864/2025] inflicted the injuries. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail application. 6. On perusal of the case diary it is revealed that the allegation against the accused-petitioner is that they were involved in the incident along with other members of their family and have inflicted the injuries by lathi blows. Normally in the rural areas whenever any such kind of incident happens all the family members are arrayed as accused. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and taking into consideration the allegations levelled against the accused-petitioners and more particularly the fact that accused-petitioners are women, this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case, deems it just and proper to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed. The S.H.O./I.O./Arresting Authority, Police Station, Kanwas, District Kota Rural in F.I.R. No. 205/2025 is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner he shall be released on bail, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac only) together with two sureties in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) each to his satisfaction on the following conditions:- (i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required; (ii) that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make [2026:RJ-JP:1122] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-16864/2025] any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer, and (iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous permission of the Court. ( GANESH RAM MEENA),J SHRUTI SHARMA /173