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