HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
YASHODA DEVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 290 / 2026
##PAGE1##
[2026:RJ-JD:5070]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 290/2026
Yashoda Devi W/o Shri Hardan Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Sarla, Police Station Bakhasar, District Barmer (At Present
Lodged District Jail Jaisalmer)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shyam Sunder Paliwal
Mr. Amit Kumar Rathi
Mr. Deepak Saraswat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
Ms. Sonu Manawat, PP
Mr. Shiv Kumar Bhati and
Mr. Bharat Gurjar for complainant
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
28/01/2026
This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been
filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with
F.I.R. No.61/2025 registered at Police Station Sadar Jaisalmer,
District Jaisalmer, for the offences under Sections 103(1) and 3(5)
of BNS.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material
available on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was
contended that as per the prosecution, the petitioner was living
separately from her husband and was in a live-in relationship with
co-accused Kalaram. On the date of the alleged incident, when her
husband, namely the deceased Hardan Ram, came to meet her, he
was allegedly killed with the assistance of co-accused Kalaram.
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 06:16:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:52:36 AM)
##PAGE2##[2026:RJ-JD:5070] (2 of 3) [CRLMB-290/2026]
Learned counsel further submitted that there is no eye-
witness to the alleged incident and that the petitioner has been
implicated solely on the basis of her own disclosure statement and
the disclosure statement of co-accused Kalaram recorded while in
custody. In his disclosure statement, co-accused Kalaram has
stated that on the date of the incident, the petitioner caught hold
of the deceased, whereafter he struck him on the head with a
sharp weapon (axe).
It was further submitted that the axe alleged to have been
used in the commission of the offence, containing bloodstains, has
been recovered at the instance of co-accused Kalaram. Learned
counsel emphasized that the petitioner had no motive to commit
the alleged crime and that no independent or corroborative
evidence is available on record to substantiate the allegations
levelled against her.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in
judicial custody; the investigation against her has already been
completed; and the trial of the case is likely to take a considerable
period of time to conclude. On these grounds, it was prayed that
the benefit of bail be granted to the accused-petitioner.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the bail
application.
Having considered the rival submissions and the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there
is no eye-witness to the alleged incident; that the petitioner has
been implicated primarily on the basis of her own disclosure
(Uploaded on 28/01/2026 at 06:16:42 PM)
(Downloaded on 31/01/2026 at 09:52:36 AM)
##PAGE3##[2026:RJ-JD:5070] (3 of 3) [CRLMB-290/2026]
statements and co-accused Kalaram’s; that no material indicating
motive on the part of the petitioner to commit the offence has
been collected by the investigating agency; and that the recovery
of the blood-stained axe has been effected at the instance of co-
accused Kalaram. This Court further prima facie finds that the
petitioner has no criminal antecedents and that the learned Public
Prosecutor has not expressed any apprehension of the petitioner
influencing the remaining prosecution witnesses or absconding in
the event she is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is
allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Yashoda Devi
W/o Shri Hardan Ram arrested in connecti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.