[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Ganga Bai vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:33891) on 30 July, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:33891]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous 3rd Bail Application No. 8291/2025
Ganga Bai W/o Late Shri Jamnashankar, Aged About 45 Years,
Resident Of Peepli Chowk, Menar, Police Station Kheroda, District
Udaipur. (Lodged In Central Jail, Udaipur)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deepak Menaria
Ms. Shivangi Pathak
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, AGA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
REPORTABLE
30/07/2025
1. The jurisdiction of this court has been invoked by way of
filing an application under Section 439 CrPC at the instance of
accused-petitioner. The requisite details of the matter are
tabulated herein below:
S.No. Particulars of the Case 1. FIR Number 132/2023 2. Concerned Police Station RAC Center,Kharoda 3. District Udaipur 4. Offences alleged in the FIR Sections 449, 302/34 of the IPC 5. Offences added, if any - 6. Date of passing of impugned 05.07.2025 order
2. Briefly stated that facts of the case are that on 06.06.2023,
the complainant Kaushal, submitted a written report at the
Mortuary, M.B. Hospital, Udaipur, alleging the homicidal assault of
his aunt, Chandabai. He stated that around 2:30 PM, he received
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (2 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
a phone call from his brother Bharat, informing him that their aunt
had been severely assaulted at her residence in Menar by her co-
wife, Ganga Bai, and Ganga’s son, Naresh, using a stick, rendering
her unconscious.
2.1. Upon receiving this information, Kaushal, along with his
younger brother Karan, rushed to the scene and found Chandabai
lying unconscious. She was immediately transported to M.B.
Hospital, during which she reportedly disclosed that Ganga and
Naresh had brutally beaten her with a stick, inflicting internal
injuries to her left arm and abdomen. She lost consciousness after
expressing concern for the welfare of her children. Upon arrival at
the hospital, the attending doctor declared her brought dead.
2.2. It is further alleged that Ganga and Naresh had unlawfully
trespassed into her premises and fatally assaulted her. The
incident is purportedly rooted in a longstanding property dispute
between Chandabai and her co-wife Ganga over ancestral land
and its partition. On the basis of the above, an FIR aforesaid has
been lodged against the petitioner and Naresh. Her first and
second bail applications being SBCRLMB Nos.12516/2023 &
11662/2024 were dismissed by this Court vide orders dated
14.12.2023 & 18.09.2024. Hence the instant bail application.
3. It is contended on behalf of the accused-petitioner that no
case for the alleged offences is made out against her and her
incarceration is not warranted. There are no factors at play in the
case at hand that may work against grant of bail to the accused-
petitioner and she has been made an accused based on
conjectures and surmises.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (3 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
4. Contrary to the submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor opposes the bail application
and submits that the present case is not fit for enlargement of
accused on bail.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions made by both
the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. The prosecution’s case centers on the allegation that that the
petitioner is culpable for the homicidal death of her co-wife,
arising from a protracted history of familial discord. It is not
disputed that the petitioner was legally espoused to the
deceased’s husband nearly two decades prior, thereby acquiring
the status of the first wife within a legally recognized matrimonial
union. In due course, the husband, while still in a subsisting
marital relationship with the petitioner, entered into a second
marriage with the deceased, thus giving rise to a polygamous
domestic setup, which was not uncommon in certain social
contexts.
6.1. Following the solemnization of the second marriage, both
wives commenced cohabitation within the same residential
premises. The accommodation in question was modest in scale
and structure, and while jointly owned or occupied, was informally
divided between the two women, with each residing in demarcated
but interconnected portions of the dwelling. This arrangement,
albeit practically functional, was not supported by any legal
partition or formal delineation of ownership rights.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (4 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
6.2. Upon the death of their common husband–who had, until
then, presumably acted as a stabilizing influence between the co-
wives–the fragile equilibrium of the household was significantly
disrupted. In the absence of a patriarchal figure, disputes over the
property, which had hitherto remained dormant or unarticulated,
began to intensify. The deceased and the petitioner, both asserting
possessory and proprietary interests in the shared premises,
reportedly engaged in recurring disagreements, primarily
revolving around the division and control of the immovable estate.
6.3. Although their shared residence continued post the demise of
the husband, their relationship became increasingly acrimonious.
Despite occupying physically separate quarters, underlying
resentment and emotional estrangement persisted, fuelled by
competing claims of inheritance and entitlement. The prosecution
submits that this history of simmering tension and antagonism
created an environment fraught with hostility, eventually
culminating in the tragic incident in question.
6.4. In this context, the alleged offence is said to have occurred.
The prosecution attributes the fatal act to a spontaneous
escalation of an existing dispute, wherein the petitioner, aggrieved
by what she perceived as unauthorized construction or renovation
activities undertaken by the deceased within the shared courtyard
(angan), resorted to an act of violence. This confrontation, it is
alleged, resulted in the petitioner striking the deceased with a
washing bat, thereby inflicting grievous injuries that ultimately
proved fatal.
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (5 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
6.5. The factual matrix, as projected by the prosecution, must
thus be viewed against the backdrop of longstanding property-
related animus, the deterioration of interpersonal relations
following the husband’s demise, and the absence of any formal
partition, which collectively contributed to a volatile domestic
environment.
7. The petitioner has been in judicial custody for over two
years. The trial remains pending, with only a portion of the
prosecution witnesses examined thus far; many still await
examination. Given the pace of proceedings and the volume of
evidence yet to be recorded, there appears to be no immediate
likelihood of conclusion of the trial in the near future. The
petitioner’s prolonged incarceration, without conviction, thus
becomes a matter of constitutional and procedural concern.
7.1. A crucial point requiring consideration–though not for final
adjudication at this stage–is whether the alleged act amounts to
‘murder’ as defined under Section 302 IPC (or its corresponding
provision in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita), or whether it may more
appropriately be categorized as ‘culpable homicide not amounting
to murder’ under Section 304. The distinction is not merely
academic; it has significant bearing on the gravity of the charge
and the applicability of statutory bail restrictions.
7.2. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner–that the act, at best, reflects a sudden altercation over
property and may fall within the definition of culpable homicide–
cannot be brushed aside at this preliminary stage. This contention
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (6 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
does have legal merit and introduces a degree of doubt as to the
exact nature of culpability attributable to the petitioner.
7.3. Section 437 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, now
encapsulated under Section 480 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, governs the principles for grant of bail in
non-bailable offences. The provision lays down that ordinarily, bail
shall not be granted where the accused is charged with an offence
punishable with death or life imprisonment, and where there are
reasonable grounds to believe in their guilt. However, the
statutory provision carves out a critical exception through its
proviso, which extends a beneficial discretion in favour of
vulnerable classes, including women, children, and infirm persons.
The underlying legislative intent is to ensure that these categories
are not subjected to the rigors of pre-trial incarceration unless
warranted by compelling reasons.
7.4. The interpretative contours of such discretion have been
judicially clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court through judicial
pronouncement holding that the word “may,” when used in
empowering provisions, can be interpreted as “shall” where the
discretion is coupled with a duty to act in a particular manner. The
objective, therefore, is to ensure that the discretion is not
exercised arbitrarily, but in consonance with the constitutional
mandate of fairness and equity. Moreover, jurisprudentially, the
presumption of innocence remains the cornerstone of criminal law.
The accused must be treated as innocent until proven guilty
beyond reasonable doubt. Detaining a person indefinitely without
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (7 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
a finding of guilt offends the very essence of Article 21 of the
Constitution, which guarantees the right to personal liberty.
7.5. An essential consideration in any bail application is the
potential threat posed by the release of the accused. This includes
the risk of absconding, tampering with evidence, or influencing
witnesses. In the present case, the petitioner is an elderly widow
with no prior criminal antecedents. There is no material on record
to suggest that she poses any such risk. In fact, several witnesses
have already been examined, reducing the likelihood of
interference with the trial process.
7.6. Given her age, lack of influence, and the absence of any
demonstrated intention to obstruct justice, it would be overly
punitive to continue her detention solely on the basis of the
gravity of the charge, especially when the trial is expected to
continue for a considerable period.
8. In view of the totality of circumstances–particularly the
petitioner’s prolonged pre-trial incarceration, the absence of
compelling reasons to suggest a risk to the trial, the debatable
classification of the offence, and her status as an elderly woman–
this Court is of the considered opinion that continued detention
would be unjustified. The purpose of bail is not to punish, but to
secure the attendance of the accused during the trial. Where that
objective can be reasonably ensured without incarceration, the
denial of bail becomes untenable in law.
9. Accordingly, the instant bail application under Section 439
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner as
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:33891] (8 of 8) [CRLMB-8291/2025]
named in the cause title shall be enlarged on bail provided he
furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the
dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J
72-Mamta/-
(Downloaded on 04/08/2025 at 09:30:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link