ITEM NO.4 COURT NO.

8 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3967/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-11-2022

in SBCRMBA No. 9337/2022 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan At Jaipur)

MAMTA Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

(IA No.52264/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. )

Date : 17-07-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Aditya Jain, AOR

Ms. Bhavya Golecha, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ashutosh Shekhar Paarcha, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

This Court has considered the application on record and heard

learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner is accused of committing offences under Section

420, 406 IPC in the First Information Report dated 08.04.2022.

The application of anticipatory bail was dismissed by the

impugned order. At the outset of the Court, this Court notices that

though the order was lengthy, the learned judge has not applied his
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Harshita Uppal
Date: 2023.07.17

mind to one crucial aspect which was highlighted during the hearing
17:52:27 IST
Reason:

viz that the petitioner had delivered a child on 30.05.2022.

1
 In terms of the requirements of Section 437 Cr. P.C., this

aspect was of significance and had to be at least taken into

consideration in the impuged order, even though what was claimed

was pre arrest bail. This Court, therefore, disapproves the manner

in which the impugned order ignores the relevant facts.

It is alleged that the petitioner and her husband have been

duping other innocent people who were victims of their schemes.

According to the State, two other FIRs are pending. The record also

indicates that the petitioner’s husband, the co-accused was

enlarged on regular bail. The State alleges that thereafter he has

absconded and steps have been taken to take him into custody.

Having regard to the all circumstances, especially that the

co-accused was granted anticipatory bail on merits, this Court is

of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be and is

accordingly directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail, subject

to such terms and conditions as the trial court may impose. One of

the conditions to be imposed would be her timely reporting on a

periodic basis (not less than once a week) before the concerned

Investigating Officer.

The petitioner shall also report to the Investigating Officer

on such other date or dates as he may choose to designate.

The petition is allowed in the above terms.

Pending applications, if any, are disposed of.

(HARSHITA UPPAL) (BEENA JOLLY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)