SMT TARA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Court: High Court of Rajasthan
Bench: SUNIL BENIWAL
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Rajasthan judgment dated 2026-08-06. SMT TARA v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
[2026:RJ-JP:37116] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S. B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2723/2026 CNR: RJHC010205372026 | URN: CRLMB / 6210U / 2026 Smt. Tara W/o Ram Lal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Sansarpur Phala Harvani Police Station Chorasi District Dungarpur (At Present Lodged In District Jail Dungarpur) ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Ojha For Respondent(s) : Mr. Urja Ram Kalbi, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL BENIWAL Order 06/08/2026 1. This application for bail has been filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of BNSS (old Section 439 of Cr. P. C. ). The requisite details of the matter are tabulated herein below: S. No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 205/2025 2. Date of lodging FIR 28. 11. 2025 3. Concerned Police Station Chaurasi 4. District Dungarpur 5. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 103(1) and 61(2) of BNS. 6. Offences added, if any Section 3(5) of BNS. 2.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and false allegations have been levelled against her. The petitioner is a lady and as per the [2026:RJ-JP:37116] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-2723/2026] investigation made and the statements recorded so far, the principal accused are Sanjay and Laxman. He further submits that the cause of death of deceased-Jeeva is on account of head injury which is attributed to accused-Sanjay. The wooden stick is also recovered from accused-Sanjay. 2. 1 He further submits that Jasoda (PW-6), who is stated to be an eye-witness, has been examined in the court and has turned hostile. The son of the deceased has also turned hostile. The niece of the deceased (PW-9) Harshita has also not supported the prosecution story and stated that she had not seen the injury was being inflicted by the present petitioner. The petitioner is in judicial custody since 31. 12.
2025 and the trial will take sufficiently long time, therefore, she deserves to be enlarged on bail. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposes this bail application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of this case and after perusing the challan papers so also considering the facts that the petitioner is a lady and in judicial custody since 31. 12.
2025; the principal accused in the present case are Sanjay and Laxman; the use of wooden stick for inflicting the head injury, which was the cause of death of deceased-Jeeva, is attributed to accused-Sanjay; none of the witnesses so far examined has attributed specific role to the present petitioner; and the fact that Jasoda (PW-6) who is stated to be an eye-witness, has been declared hostile; and that the [2026:RJ-JP:37116] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-2723/2026] prosecution has not expressed any apprehension qua the petitioner fleeing away from justice, in case she is enlarged on bail, in the considered opinion of this Court, no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period as the trial will take sufficiently long time. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted. 6.
Accordingly, the bail application filed under Section 483 of BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner- Smt. Tara W/o Ram Lal, shall be released on bail in connection with the aforesaid FIR; provided she executes personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs. 25,000/-each to the satisfaction of learned trial Court for his appearance before that court on each and every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till the completion of the trial. 7. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same. (SUNIL BENIWAL),J 3/Ajay Singh
Source: Supreme Court eSCR. Dataset: Dattam Labs, CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.