SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Ayodhya Devi vs State on 23 October, 2017

S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 8345 / 2017
Ayodhya Devi W/o Kishore Singh, Aged About 66 Years, By Caste
Rajpurohit Resident of Khichan Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

The State of Rajasthan

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Choudhary, PP for the State.

Accused-petitioner Ayodhya Devi has laid this pre-arrest bail

application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. to thwart her arrest pursuant

to investigation into C.R. Case No.243/2012, investigated at Police

Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur for offence punishable under

Sections 498A 304B IPC. Police after investigation has

submitted charge-sheet against Shyam Singh while keeping

investigation pending against the petitioner under Section 173(8)


It is argued by learned counsel that Shyam Singh has been

granted regular bail by this Court on 6 th of September, 2017 while

deciding S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No.7210/2017, and therefore,

considering the status of the petitioner as woman and her

sexagenarian age it would not be appropriate to subject her to

custodial interrogation.

(2 of 2)

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application in


Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case,

without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it

just and proper to grant anticipatory bail to the accused petitioner.

Accordingly, this bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is

allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of petitioner

Ayodhya Devi W/o Kishore Singh in connection with FIR

No.243/2012, Police Station Phalodi, District Jodhpur, she shall be

enlarged on bail provided she furnishes a personal bond in a sum

of Rs.50,000/- with two sound and solvent sureties of Rs.25,000/-

each to the satisfaction of the concerned I.O./S.H.O. on following


(i) She shall make himself available for interrogation by
Investigating Officer as and when required;

(ii) She shall not directly or indirectly make 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 to any
Police Officer;

(iii) She shall not leave India without previous permission
of the Court.


Twinkle Singh/51

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation