1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R 1. Umrao Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.6260/2007 2. Smt. Rajkumari Vs. State of Rajasthan S.B.CR. MISC. BAIL APPLICATION NO.6266/2007 DATE OF ORDER :: February 05, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr.Shanker Rajpurohit, for the petitioners. Mr.L.R. Upadhyay, P.P. for the State. BY THE COURT: Both these bail applications under section 439 Cr.P.C. arise out of one and same FIR being FIR No.267/2007, Police Station, Rajgargh, District Churu and involve common question of law and facts and, therefore, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are heard and decided together. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length as also the Public Prosecutor for the State. Carefully gone through the orders impugned dt. 28.9.2007 and 22.11.2007 2 respectively passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Rajgarh, District Churu dismissing the bail applications filed by the petitioners. I have carefully gone through the challan papers filed by the police as also the statements of the witnesses, post mortem report, information furnished by the accused-petitioners and the discovery pursuant thereof, calls details etc. as also the statements of the petitioners recorded by the police under section 161 Cr.P.C. Facts giving rise to the instant bail applications are that on an information received by the police that in the house of petitioner Umrao Singh, bed smell of dead body is noticed by the neighbourers, on which the police inspected the site of the plot owned by petitioner Umrao Singh and prepared the site inspection note. Accused Pradhyuman Singh alias Sonu alias John, Virendra Singh alias Kalu, petitioners Umrao Singh and Smt. Rajkumari were arrested. The half burnt dead body of the deceased, who later on was identified to be Kumari Aditi Gupta was taken into custody, it was found concealed in a pit in the house of petitioner Umrao Singh. There were other material including petrol in two bottles, which was used for burning the deceased. Some material of the dead body including half burnt hairs, muscles and clothes, which the deceased was wearing, were also recovered. A car in which, the dead body was kept for 3 some time having indicative of material including the pieces of muscles and clothes, which the deceased was wearing and some material used for causing the death of Kumari Aditi Gupta have been recovered by the police. The autopsy of dead body of Aditi Gupta was conducted by the Medical Board and the Medical Board opined the cause of death of Aditi Gupta due to asphyxia caused by strangulation and the strangulation was ante mortem and sufficient to cause the death. The statements of the various witnesses recorded by the police showing the last scene of deceased Aditi Gupta with accused Pradhyuman Singh alias Sonu alias John, grand-son of petitioner Umrao Singh and son of petitioner Smt. Rajkumari. Soon before the occurrence, the co- accused and the petitioners were seen at the plot and the house situated therein in which the dead body of the deceased was concealed by putting it into a pit. Both the petitioners furnished information under section 27 of the Evidence Act apart from other co-accused and in pursuance thereof, the place, where the dead body was concealed, has been verified by the police from the petitioners. There are witnesses, who saw petitioner Smt.Rajkumari giving direction to other co-accused for concealing the dead body by digging earth and putting the dead body therein. There is also an evidence that Aditi Gupta was murdered by strangulating her by co-accused Pradhyuman Singh alias Sonu alias John, grand-son of petitioner Umrao Singh and 4 son of petitioner Smt. Rajkumari as the deceased Kumari Adidi Gupta and Pradhyuman Singh had affairs and deceased was pressurizing him for marriage, which co-accused Pradhyuman Singh and his family members, petitioners herein never wanted and somehow wanted to get rid of Kumari Aditi Gupta. Co- accused Pradhyuman Singh had relation and affairs on the assurance given by him for marriage. The details of various calls between deceased Aditi Gupta and co-accused Pradhyuman Singh alias Sonu alias John and petitioners herein are available on record indicating the manner in which the murder of Kumari Aditi Gupta was planned and ultimately executed and the dead body was concealed in the house of petitioner Umrao Singh and his daughter petitioner Rajkumari living with petitioner Umrao Singh. A Nokia mobile handset of Aditi Gupta and certain greeting cards were also recovered from co-accused. On careful perusal of the entire challan papers, prima facie there is strong evidence connecting the petitioner with the commission of crime. Both the petitioners prima facie played active participation in the commission of crime including concealing of dead body of Aditi Gupta in the house of petitioner Umrao Singh and petitioner Rajkumari being his daughter also living with him and prima faice there is also evidence that petitioner Rajkumari came to the place of occurrence and gave 5 direction to other co-accused to conceal the dead body of Kumari Aditi Gupta as has been stated by the neighbouring witnesses. In the circumstances, therefore, without commenting on merit of the case, which may prejudice the case of either party at the trial, the police has concluded the investigation, charge-sheet has been filed and trial of the case has proceeded and, therefore, keeping in view the material available on record and the evidence collected by the police during investigation as briefly noticed above and keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Ritesh (2001) 4 SCC 224, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the final charge-sheet has been filed in the trial court, the High Court under the normal circumstances, should have permitted the respondent to get a verdict of his innocence or involvement from that court under Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. No exceptional ground has been made out, in the instant case, to depart from such usual established procedure, in my view, it is not at all a fit case to release both the petitioners on bail. The bail applications filed by both the petitioners under section 439 Cr.P.C. are, therefore, dismissed. [H.R.PANWAR],J. m.asif/-