Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Savitri vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 2021
Bench: Devendra Kachhawaha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 4031/2021
Smt. Savitri W/o Hitesh, Aged About 49 Years, Hathai, Police
Station Dowda, District Dungarpur. (At Present Lodged In District
Jail Dungarpur).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Naresh Khatri
Mohd. Rasheed
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Laxman Solanki, PP
Mr. Anuj Sehlot for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA
Judgment / Order
08/04/2021
The present second bail application has been filed under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner, who is in judicial
custody in connection with F.I.R. No.212/2019, Police Station
Dowda, District Dungarpur, registered for the offence under
Sections 302, 201/34 of IPC.
Heard and considered the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor as
well as counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available
on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that at the time of
rejection of first bail application, liberty was granted to accused-
petitioner to file fresh bail application after recording the
statement of witness Sonal. Statement of witnesses Nathu Lal,
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-4031/2021]
Sonal and Arvind (brother of the deceased) have been recorded as
PW-01, PW-02 and PW-03. It is admitted by Sonal during
statement that walls of accused house are 8 or 9 feet long. There
is variation in statement of Sonal and his Father Nathu lal that his
daughter misplaced on 23.09.2019 at about 04:30 P.M. Despite of
that, no search was made on same day and report was lodged on
24.09.2019, therefore, story of last seen witness is not reliable. As
per statement of Sonal (PW-02), she has not seen the accused-
petitioner along with deceased Anita; she only saw her sister Anita
going towards the house of accused not with the accused. Trial of
the case will take time. With these observations, learned counsel
for the petitioner stated that benefit of bail may be granted to the
accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and counsel for the
complainant fervently and vehemently opposed the bail application
and stated that as per statement of witness Sonal (PW-02); she
denied this assertion that gate of Raja's house cannot be visible
from her house. She further stated that when her sister Anita
went, she was on bed placed in open portion of the house. She is
the last seen witness and there was love affair between the
accused and deceased. Deceased was pregnant and mother of
accused is a Nurse, therefore, accused advised Anita to go to his
home and his mother will take care of the matter. They further
stated that as per FSL report, same blood group was found on
recovered articles and also on the vehicle (car) used for
transporting the dead body of the deceased. Therefore, benefit of
bail may not be granted to the accused-petitioner.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-4031/2021]
In reply, learned counsel for the appellant stated that at the
most it is a case of suicide punishable under Section 306 of IPC as
per statement of Nathu Lal (PW-01).
After thoughtful consideration of the arguments advanced by
both the sides and looking to the fact that same blood group was
found on recovered articles and on the car used for transporting
the dead body of the deceased, therefore, without expressing any
opinion on the merits/demerits of the case, I do not find it a fit
case to enlarge the accused-petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the bail application filed by the petitioner under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. is rejeced.
(DEVENDRA KACHHAWAHA),J
126-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
