Advocates:
['BS RATHORE', '', 'TS RATHORE', 'CHANDRASEN SINGH', 'PP']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B.Criminal Misc. II Bail No. 1884 / 2017

Draupati Devi W/o Pala Ram @ Shishpal,, By Caste Jat, Resident

of Khet Mai Dhani, Chak Rohi 3 KHD, Rawatsar Police Station,

District Hanumangarh. (Lodged in Sub Jail, Nohar)

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S. Rathore

For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.P. Bhardwaj

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI

Order

23/03/2017

This bail application has been moved by the accused-

petitioner Draupati Devi in FIR No. 387/2016 Police Station

Rawatsar Distt. Hanumangarh filed for the offences punishable

under Sections 302, 449 & 143 IPC.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as also learned

Public Prosecutor.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was

filed against the accused including petitioner Draupati on the basis

of extra judicial confession but the informant Pala Ram himself has

turned hostile during trial. He has submitted that all other

witnesses so far have not supported the prosecution case. There is

no evidence against the petitioner of last seen or any other

connecting evidence.

Learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the

(2 of 2)

[CRLMB-1884/2017]

prayer stating that Pala Ram lodged the FIR on 11.07.2016 just

after incident took place on 10.07.2016. He has filed the FIR

against his wife Draupati and children Pooja & Rohtash etc for

causing murder of his mother Savitri. There was no occasion to

wrongly implead them as accused. Witnesses have turned hostile

because of the compromise having taken place as the matter

pertains to their Family fold. He has further stated that on the

basis of the information under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence

Act, given by petitioner Draupati, Odhni, Towel & Rassi were

recovered. As per the post mortem report of Savitri, her death

took place due to asphyxia because of suffocation. The articles by

which strangulation was caused have been recovered on the

information given by petitioner Draupati. He thus submits that

the case is based on circumstancial evidence and many important

witnesses are yet to be examined in this behalf.

Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival

contentions as also on the documents available on record, without

expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not feel

inclined to grant bail to the present petitioner.

Hence, the bail application is dismissed accordingly.

(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI)J.

Mohit/211