Monday, 11, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Maya Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11024 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 11024 Raj
Judgement Date : 16 July, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Maya Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7386/2021

1. Maya Devi W/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Lalanabas, Nathwaniya, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Jail)

2. Ms. Kiran D/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Lalanabas, Nathwaniya, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Jail)

3. Sunil S/o Shri Jagdish, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Lalanabas, Nathwaniya, Tehsil Nohar District Hanumangarh. (At Present Lodged In Jail)

----Petitioners Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. Ramesh Kumar Bohara
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Anil Joshi, PP
                                Mr. D.S. Gharsana & Mr. Suresh Nehra
                                for complainant



HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Judgment / Order

16/07/2021

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge-

sheet has been filed under Section 306, 320 & 34 IPC.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant points out

that the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC and after the

post-mortem report, there is no opinion that the deceased died by

drowning. The post-mortem report also does not reflect that the

person would have died on account of drowning.

3. It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer has

wrongfully and without giving any reasons converted the case

(2 of 3) [CRLMB-7386/2021]

from Section 302 IPC to 306 IPC with a view to help the accused

in spite of the fact that bloodstain clothes were found near the

well and when the body was recovered there was blood oozing out

of the ears. Thus, it is a clear case of murder and not that of

suicide.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that if a case has

been registered under Section 302 IPC and the Investigating

Officer finds that after investigation the case is to be registered

under the other sections then he must take an opinion from the

Director (Prosecution) or any of his subordinate.

5. I have considered the submissions. Although, this is a bail

application and in normal course while examining a bail application

this Court would not look into the method and manner in which

the charge-sheet has been filed ordinarily but in the peculiar

circumstances in this case as pointed out by learned counsel for

the complainant and the documents which have come on record

by way of the charge-sheet papers this Court cannot ignore the

apparent deficiency in investigation.

6. The charge-sheet does not reflect that the Investigating

Officer has taken any opinion from the Public Prosecutor or any

officer of the Director (Prosecution). No reasons are assigned for

converting the case from Section 302 IPC to 306 IPC.

7. From the post-mortem report, it is apparent that the death

has not been caused due to drowning and if the Investigating

Officer has reached to the conclusion that the deceased was

beaten, he could not have converted into a case of suicide or

abetment to commit suicide. Such a course adopted by the

Investigating Officer therefore requires to be examined seriously.

(3 of 3) [CRLMB-7386/2021]

8. Let the matter be placed before the I.G. (Crime) for

examining the entire investigation afresh and submit his report

before this Court. He shall also examine the role of the concerned

Investigating Officer and if he finds that the Investigating Officer

has deliberately tried to save the concerned accused, a

departmental action including suspension and departmental

inquiry be also initiated against him.

9. The report in this regard shall be submitted to this Court

positively within a period of two months.

10. On the merits of the case after examining the challan papers

and the statements which have come on record and the medical

report, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners.

11. The bail application is accordingly dismissed.

12. This case shall only be kept pending for the purpose of

submitting report of I.G. Range Bikaner.

13. List this case again on 17.09.2021 for the aforesaid purpose.

14. A copy of this order be sent to the I.G. Range, Bikaner for

compliance of the order.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

24-1/-saurabh

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter