HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

RP No. 03/2023

CM No. 313/2023

Reserved on : 17.05.2023

Pronounced on : 12.06.2023

1. Smt. Shankri Devi age 62 years,

W/o Sh. Hari Ram,

R/o Village Malikote Tehsil Chassana,

District Reasi.

2. Miss Shano Devi @ Chasma Devi age

24years D/o Sh. Hari Ram,

R/o Village Malikote Tehsil Chassana,

District Reasi.

.….Petitioner(s)

Through :- Sh. O.P.Thakur, Sr. Advocate with

Sh. R. K. S. Thakur, Advocate.

V/s

Union Territory of J&K through SHO

Police Station Chassana.

…..Respondent(s)

Through :- Sh. Suraj Singh, GA

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAN LAL, JUDGE

J U D G M E N T

1.

Petitioners have preferred instant petition for review/recalling of the

judgment and order dated 28.11.2022 passed by this Court in bail

application No. 76/2020 titled Smt. Shankri Devi and Anr. Vs. Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Chassana,

whereby, the bail application of the petitioners has been rejected.

2.

Being

aggrieved

of

and

dissatisfied

with

the

impugned

judgment/order dated 28.11.2022, petitioners have sought it’s review on the

following grounds.

(i)

that there are material errors which have crept in the judgment and

order which are apparent on the face of record, the most important

submissions which were not only pleaded but also argued by the counsel

for the petitioners as well as the copies of the judgments relied by the

petitioners were placed on record but the same could not be considered;

(ii)

that this Court has recorded a finding that only 5 witnesses have

been examined, whereas fact of the matter is that when the aforesaid

judgment and order dated 28.11.2022 was passed as many as 13 witnesses

were already examined by the trial court, witness No. 12 was partly

examined, witnesses 1 to 13 were examined even when the bail application

Sr. No. 3

2 RP No. 03/2023

was heard by this court on 28.10.2022, this court summoned the scanned

record of the trial court and at that time as many as 9 witnesses were

already examined, the statements were available on record, this court

recorded a finding that PW Javeed Ahmad witness to seizure of duptta is

yet to be examined but the fact of the matter is that the said witness PW8

Javeed Ahmad was already examined on 27.03.2012 and his statement was

available on the scanned record;

(iii)

that the counsel for the petitioners argued that as many as 14

witnesses have been examined, in the bail application it was pleaded that

the petitioners were females and were entitled to grant of bail in terms of

proviso to Section 437 CrPC, not only petitioners placed on record three

judgments of this Court along with bail application as annexed VII, VIII &

IX and even in the said judgments it was held that even in non-bailable

offences in terms of the proviso to Section 498 CrPC (J&K) which

correspondence to Section 437 (central) the females were entitled to grant

of bail, counsel for the petitioners submitted his first arguments in

reference to the said provision, however, due to mistake and oversight the

aforesaid material submission could not be considered by this court;

(iv)

that as many as 13 witnesses have already been examined there is

no possibility of even influencing any witnesses, for participating in the

first death anniversaries of deceased Sita Devi the trial Court had granted

parole on 10 days but the accused petitioners surrendered before the trial

court on due date and even in the circumstances there is no possibility of

jumping of the petitioners on bail;

(v)

that the witnesses who are yet to be examined are PW 14 Patwari

who has prepared the site plan, PW15 & PW16 w