SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 1723

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top