HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc. Bail No. 768 / 2017

1. Smt Suwa Kanwar W/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 65 Years

2. Smt Geeta Kanwar W/o Gulab Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Both by Caste Rajput, Residents of Bhojraj Singh Ki Dhani,
Sankara Police Station, District Jaisalmer.

—-Petitioners
Versus
The State of Rajasthan

—-Respondent
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Mahalana
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashok Upadhyay, P.P. and I.O. Mr.
Kevalram, Addl. D.C.P., Commissionerate,
Jodhpur.

For Complainant(s): Mr. M.K. Garg
_____________________________________________________
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Judgment / Order
04/04/2017

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Public

Prosecutor assisted by I.O. Mr. Kevalram, Addl. D.C.P.,

Commissionerate, Jodhpur. Perused the material available on

record.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf the

petitioners apprehending their arrest in connection with F.I.R.

No.39/2015, registered at Police Station Sankara, District

Jaisalmer for the offences under Sections 302, 201 498-A and

120-B IPC.

Learned Public prosecutor has filed an application for

exemption of personal appearance on behalf of S.P., Jaisalmer
(2 of 5)
[CRLMB-768/2017]

citing the reason that he is busy in law and order duty on account

of Ram Navmi festival. For the reasons mentioned in the

application, the personal presence of the S.P., Jaisalmer in this

Court is exempted.

Learned counsel Shri Mahalana contended that there is no

evidence worth the name on record to connect the petitioners with

the offences alleged. The petitioners are the mother-in-law and

sister-in-law respectively of the deceased Smt. Bannu who was

married to Jabbar Singh about thirteen years ago. Smt. Bannu fell

seriously ill on 15.06.2015. Her brother Sher Singh was informed

by Jabbar Singh and both took Smt. Bannu to the Government

Hospital Sankara from there, upon the doctor’s advise, she was

taken to Pokaran, where the doctor declared her dead. Thereafter,

her dead body was brought back to the matrimonial home and

cremated with consent and in presence of her maternal relatives.

The FIR of the incident was lodged on 17.6.2016 by Shri Manak

Singh brother of the deceased. The investigating agency

conducted thorough investigation and filed a complete charge-

sheet only against the accused Jabbar Singh for the offences

under Sections 498A, 302 and 201 IPC. Thereafter, withough any

rhyme or reason and without any intimation or permission from

the competent Court, further investigation has been initiated in

the matter and the petitioners’ arrest is sought for no cause

whatsoever. He urges that neither the prosecution have the aid of

any legal presumption because the marriage of Smt. Bannu with

Jabbar Singh was solemnised about 13 years ago nor is there any

material on record to show that the petitioners had in any manner
(3 of 5)
[CRLMB-768/2017]

conspired with Jabbar Singh to murder Smt. Bannu. On the

contrary, as per Shri Mahalana, the deceased expired because of

natural causes and that is why her maternal relatives did not

protest against the cremation and rather participated therein. He

thus urges that the petitioners are entitled to be enlarged on

anticipatory bail.

Per contra learned public prosecutor and Shri Garg learned

counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the

submissions advanced by the petitioner’s counsel.

The learned Public Prosecutor candidly conceded that the

I.O. neither sought any permission of the Court concerned before

initiating further investigation nor was any intimation given in this

regard. However he contends that the further investigation has

resulted into a positive finding that the petitioners are responsible

for the offences under Section 498A and 201 IPC read with

Section 120B IPC. Shri Garg contends that as there is evidence on

record to show that the deceased was being harassed on account

of illicit relations of Jabbar Singh with petitioner no.2 Smt. Geeta

Kanwar and thus the petitioners should not be granted indulgence

of anticipatory bail.

There is ample evidence on record to show that while Smt.

Bannu was alive, information was sent by her husband Jabbar

Singh to her brother Sher Singh who accompanied Jabbar Singh

and the deceased to the Government Hospital, Sankara and

Pokaran. Two Government doctors posted at Sankara and Pokaran,

clearly stated during investigation that they did not notice any

injury on the person of Smt. Bannu. The first doctor at Sankara
(4 of 5)
[CRLMB-768/2017]

namely Ajay Kumar even stated that the lady was alive but was in

a serious condition. The deceased was present with her husband

Jabbar Singh on the roadside about 1 Km. from the residence

when she suddenly fell ill. Shri Sher Singh her brother was

informed. He reached to the spot, and the deceased was taken to

the hospital. Admittedly the petitioners herein were not present at

that place. The dead body of Smt. Bannu was cremated without

any protest from her maternals. The FIR came to be lodged after

two days of the incident.

In this background and more particularly having regard to

the fact that the investigating agency, even at this belated stage

does not appear to be proceeding against present petitioners for

the offence under Section 302 IPC, they deserve to be enlarged on

anticipatory bail.

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed and it is directed

that in the event of arrest of petitioners Smt Suwa Kanwar and

Smt Geeta Kanwar in connection with F.I.R. No.39/2015,

registered at Police Station Sankara, District Jaisalmer the

petitioner shall be released on bail; provided they furnish a

personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each along with two

sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the concerned

Investigating Officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions :-

(i). that the petitioners shall make themselves available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with
(5 of 5)
[CRLMB-768/2017]

the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing
such facts to the court or any police officer; and

(iii). that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous

permission of the court.

(SANDEEP MEHTA)J.

Anurag/1