GYARSI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice was given to the learned Public Prosecutor and she has accepted the same. Heard, The S.H.O., Police Station Bassi, after investigation in Crime No. 216/90 submitted the challan against seven accused persons in the Court of learned Munsif & Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur District, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jaipur District, from which ultimately the case was transferred to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur District. An application u/Section 319 Cr. P.C., was filed on behalf of the prosecution. The learned Trial Judge after perusing the challan papers and the evidence collected by the 1.0. and also relying on the law laid down on Roshni & Others v. State of Rajasthan, took cognizance against the accused petitioners (1) Smt. Gyarsi and (2) Smt. Bhagwati for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 325, 302 & 302/149, IPC vide his order dated 14.9.1995. He also ordered for issuing warrants against the accused petitioners for ensuring their attendance and simultaneously he further ordered that charge for the said offences be also framed against the accused petitioners. Dissatisfied by the impugned order the petitioners have filed this revision petition.

(2.) Mr. Mehrishi, learned Counsel for the accused petitioner has rightly not challenged the impugned order to the extent whereby cognizance against the accused-petitioners for the said offences was taken because, the deceased Radhey Shyam in his police statement had specifically mentioned about the overt acts of the accused petitioners.

(3.) A perusal of the post-mortem examination report of Redhey shyam reveals that he died after four days of the incident and the doctor did not given any final opinion about cause of his death, for want of the chemical analysis and his to pathological examination of the various visceras taken out from the dead body. The learned trial Judge has simply ordered that warrants be issued against the accused petitioners to ensure their attendance. He has also not specified as to whether the warrant be issued bailable or non-bailable. The petitioners are ladies. As per postmortem report, deceased Radhey Shyam did not sustain any fracture on his skull bones but only a haematoma underneath his occipital bone was detected by the doctor. Hence keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of this case, I feel that it will be just and proper if bailable warrants in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) are issued against the petitioners to ensure their attendance.