Ashwani Godhara vs State
2021 Latest Caselaw 11809 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous II Bail Application No. 9177/2021

Ashwani Godhara S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Chack 17 Ml (Pathanwala), Teh. And Dist. Sri Ganganagar (Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Sriganganagar)

----Petitioner Versus State, Through PP

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Umesh Shrimali For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Joshi, PP Mr. R.S. Choudhary

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Judgment

29/07/2021

This second application for bail has been filed on behalf of

the accused petitioner Ashwani Godhara, who is in custody in

relation to FIR No.179/2019, Police Station Sadar, District

Sriganganagar for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.

The first application for bail filed on behalf of the accused-

petitioner was rejected as withdrawn on 09.04.2021 while giving

liberty to the accused-petitioner to file a fresh bail application

after recording statements of the witnesses Gaurav and Rajesh by

the trial court. Now, evidence of these two witnesses has been

recorded and thereafter, this second application for bail has been

moved.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the bail

application are noted hereinbelow:-

(2 of 5) [CRLMB-9177/2021]

The petitioner herein is the brother-in-law of the deceased

Navneet Singh whose dead body was found in the canal near the

Netewala Bypass. The FIR No.179/2019 for the offences under

Sections 279 & 304-A IPC came to be registered on the basis of

the statement of the petitioner recorded by the official of the

Police Station Sadar, Sriganganagar on 17.06.2019. It was

recorded in the FIR that the petitioner, alongwith his brother-in-

law Navneet and niece Yukta were proceeding from Pathanwala to

Sriganganagar in a car. On the way, Navneet stated that his

mobile had been left behind, on which, they turned back. When

they reached the bridge on the Netewala bypass, an unknown

truck came from the opposite direction being driven in rash and

negligent manner and thus, the informant (accused-petitioner),

who was driving the vehicle, took it off the road to prevent the

imminent collision. However, the car went out of control and fell

down into the canal. The informant and his niece were somehow

brought out of the canal by two young boys present there, but

Navneet could not survive and drowned to death. The two boys

who had saved the informant and the girl were named Gaurav

Kashyap and Rajesh. About seven days after lodging of the said

FIR, Yukta, daughter of Navneet submitted an application to the

IO alleging that as a matter of fact, the petitioner intentionally

drove the vehicle towards the canal. Before the car could reach

the canal, he himself jumped out of the vehicle. Yukta could

somehow be saved by the bystanders but her father got stuck in

the vehicle and drowned. When she reached the house of the

petitioner, the persons present there were shocked by her

survival. She alleged that her mama Ashwani Godhara (the

petitioner), Mausi (step-mother) Suman, Poonam, Sulochana and

(3 of 5) [CRLMB-9177/2021]

Ajay had conspired together to kill her and her father so that they

could usurp the properties. After receiving this complaint, the

investigation was diverted and the offence under Section 302 IPC

was applied thereto. Charge-sheet came to be filed against the

petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC

whereas investigation was kept pending qua Suman @ Radhika

(second wife of Navneet Kumar, deceased). Later on, a complete

charge-sheet was filed exonerating Suman @ Radhika fully. The

petitioner earlier applied for bail which was dismissed by this

Court vide order dated 09.04.2021.

It may be stated here that during investigation, the

witnesses Rajesh (PW.12) and Gaurav (PW.13) had stated that

they saw the girl drowning in the canal and jumped therein and

took her out whereas Ashwani Godhara met them on the road.

However, at the trial, both these witnesses did not support this

theory and categorically stated that they pulled out the petitioner

as well as the girl Yukta from the canal.

Craving bail for the petitioner, Shri Umesh Shrimali, learned

counsel vehemently and fervently urged that the entire

prosecution case is false and fabricated. The petitioner had no

motive whatsoever to kill the deceased Navneet Singh or the

witness Yukta because Navneet was happily married to the

petitioner's sister Suman and thus, it cannot be believed that the

petitioner would eliminate his own brother-in-law and thereby

make his sister to face widowhood at a young age. He contends

that the statement of the star prosecution witness Yukta (PW.11)

is totally unbelievable and contradicted by the statements of the

two witnesses referred to supra. He further points out that the girl

had full legal advice but still, the report regarding the incident not

(4 of 5) [CRLMB-9177/2021]

being an accident and rather being a planned murder came to be

lodged after nearly six days of the incident which completely

discredits the evidentiary worth of the testimony of Yukta (PW.11).

He thus, urges that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and Shri R.S.

Choudhary, learned counsel representing the complainant

vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by

the petitioner's counsel. They contended that the petitioner and

his sister Suman @ Radhika, whom the deceased Navneet married

after the death of the first wife, conspired together to eliminate

Navneet Singh as well as Yukta his only daughter from the first

marriage so that they could usurp his properties and Smt. Suman

@ Radhika could seek appointment on compassionate basis in

place of Shri Navneet Singh, who was a government servant. They

submit that at this stage, there is no reason to doubt the

testimony of Yukta (PW.11) who has categorically stated that the

petitioner was driving the vehicle and that he intentionally drove it

towards the canal. While doing so, he himself jumped out. The

vehicle plunged into the canal. Navneet drowned to death

whereas Yukta could somehow be saved by the bystanders. On

these submissions, they sought dismissal of the bail application.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions

advanced at bar and have carefully perused the documents filed

on record including the evidence of the witnesses recorded so far.

Suffice it to say that the most striking fact which stands out

is regarding the stark silence of the witness Yukta (PW.11) in

reporting the matter to the police. The incident took place on

16.06.2019 but Yukta who was not constrained in any manner,

came out with the theory that the accused petitioner deliberately

(5 of 5) [CRLMB-9177/2021]

drove the vehicle towards the canal by the report submitted to the

police as late as on 24.06.2019. The prosecution had relied upon

the evidence of the witnesses Rajesh (PW.12) and Gaurav (PW.13)

in order to corroborate the theory of Yukta but both these

witnesses, upon being examined at the trial did not support this

story and rather stated that they brought out both Ashwani and

Yukta from the canal. This story is consistent with the version as

set out in the FIR lodged by the petitioner immediately after the

incident. In this background, making it clear that the observations

made hereinabove, are only for the purpose of deciding this bail

application and shall not prejudice/influence the outcome of the

trial in any manner, I am inclined to enlarged the petitioner on

bail.

Accordingly, this second bail application is allowed and it is

directed that the accused-petitioner Ashwani Godhara S/o Shri

Pratap Singh arrested in connection with the F.I.R. No.179/2019

registered at Police Station Sadar, District Sriganganagar shall be

released on bail provided he furnishes a personal bond of

Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear

before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called

upon to do so.

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J 18-Sudhir Asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)