High Court

Legal Reasoning

ABA 240/25 & Ors1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD24 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 240 OF 2025WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2025 IN ABA/240/2025ABDUL KALEEM AHMED ABDUL RAHEEM & ANOTHERVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Chatterji JoydeepAPP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale Advocate for assisting APP : Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh…WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 260 OF 2025MOHAMMAD RIZWAN MOHAMMAD ZAKIRVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. G.R. SyedAPP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale...WITHANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 275 OF 2025SHAIKH KHAJA SHAIKH MAHEBOOBVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant : Mr. S.J. SalunkeAPP for Respondents/State : Mr. S.P. Sonpawale...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :13/03/2025PER COURT : 1.Criminal Application No. 548/2025 in ABA No. 240/2025, filed forassist to APP is allowed. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned advocate is allowedto assist the learned APP in ABA 240/2025.2.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APP for therespondents-State and Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned advocate assistingAPP in ABA No. 240/2025. ABA 240/25 & Ors23.The applicants in above applications are apprehending arrest inconnection with Crime No. 27/2025 dated 20.1.2025 registered with NewMondha Police Station, Parbhani for the offences punishable under sections296, 352, 333, 351(2), 351(3), 115(2), 189(2), 191(2), 190, 76 of B.N.S.,2023.4.The case against the applicants is registered by the informant Mr.Tamboli Abdul Rahaman Abdul Rashid, who is serving in GovernmentHospital Parbhani as Assistant Professor. He has another house near MakkaMasjid in Parbhani. The informant has reported that on 17.1.2025 at 4.30p.m. when he had gone to his house at Parbhani, he saw that large crowdhad gathered there and they stopped him from going inside the house.When he entered inside, his mother, father and brother were present in thehouse. Ex-corporator, (Khaja – applicant in ABA No. 275/2025) and otherapplicants were also present there. On being asked why people have gatherthere, his mother told him that the ex-corporator asked them to vacate thehouse in which they were residing as it belongs to Makka Masjid.Complainant informed to ex-corporator and other applicants that prior tofive years the said land was purchased by the father of informant and itbelongs to the family of informant. At that time Tajoddin Pathan (applicantin ABA No. 240/2025) has abused the informant and his mother (Dr. Rafat)in filthy language and pulled the mother of the informant by holding herhands and assaulted the informant on stomach, chest, ribs by fist and kickblows. Thereafter, Kaleem Boss (applicant in ABA No. 240/2025), Rizwan(applicant in ABA No. 260/2025), Abdul Majid and other 10 to 15 personsalso assaulted informant and caused bleeding injuries on lips, nose and earof the informant. As such, the offence is registered against the applicants. ABA 240/25 & Ors35.Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in ABANo. 275/2025 submits that the applicant is the Chairman of the MasjidCommittee and genesis of the offence is suppressed. The actual incident isthat the brother of the informant namely Dr. Abdul Salam was in thepremises along with another lady Dr. Neha Tarannum. They had closed thedoors of the room and had indulged in illicit activity of physical intimacy.When the people from the vicinity came to know about them, the mob hadgathered before the room at 5.00 p.m. The people from the vicinity enteredinto the room. They called parents of Dr. Abdul Salam and Dr. Neha andthey assaulted Dr. Abdul Salam for immoral and illegal act. The learnedcounsel submits that Dr. Abdul Salam is already married, however,physically engaged with a junior doctor. After arrival of the parents, of theinformant, he started abusing the people. It is stated that the applicant,who is residing in the same locality, came on the spot and tried to pacifythe incident. Relatives of Dr. Neha Taranum insisted for performance of hermarriage with the brother of the informant with whom she was found in theclosed room. As such, marriage of Dr. Neha was immediately solemnizedwith Dr. Abdul Salam by calling a Kazi. The family members of theinformant were against the said marriage. However, due to insistence ofrelatives of Dr. Neha and people from the vicinity, marriage wassolemnized.6.Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned counsel submits that applicant in ABA No.275/2025 has not assaulted anyone nor outraged the modesty of any lady.Dr. Neha under the pressure of informant and his family members made theallegations of outraging the modesty against the applicants. The incident isrecorded in the CCTV footage and in mobiles of the people present there. ABA 240/25 & Ors4He therefore prays to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 7.Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel appearing for the applicants inABA No. 240/2025 submits that allegations against the applicants are thatthey abused the informant and his mother. The incident occurred on17.1.2025 and the F.I.R. is lodged on 20.1.2025 and as such, there is delayof more than three days in lodging the F.I.R. and the delay is caused only toimplicate the multiple number of people in this crime. The learned counselsubmits that at the most, it can be the offence of outraging the modestyand no custodial interrogation of the applicants in ABA No. 240/2025 isnecessary. The learned counsel therefore prays to grant anticipatory bail tothe applicants.8.Mr. G.R. Sayed, learned counsel appearing for the applicant in ABANo. 260/2025 submits that the only allegation against the applicant is thathe was present at the scene of offence and as all offences are bailable,anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant.9. Per contra, Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel assisting APP inABA No. 240/2025 submits that informant has suffered grievous injuryduring the incident and there is direct evidence of involvement of theapplicants and as such, the anticipatory bail application of the applicants berejected.10.Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, learned counsel assisting APP further submitsthat affidavit of father of Dr. Neha Tarannum is produced along with policepapers in which he has stated that the family members have themselvesparticipated in the marriage and they have got the marriage performed andthese documents only show the pressure exerted on the parents of Dr.Neha and as such, anticipatory bail applications should be dismissed on this ABA 240/25 & Ors5ground itself. The learned counsel submits that forceful performance ofmarriage of Dr. Neha with the brother of the informant would not entitledthe applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.11.The learned APP submits that during the course of investigation,statement of Dr. Neha Tarranum was recorded. She has stated that whilethere was fight between the applicants and the informant, she being thejunior doctor was present there and tried to intervene in the incident,however, the applicants and others pulled her Burkha and outraged hermodesty and thereafter, they forcefully performed her marriage with Dr.Abdul Salam, brother of the informant, by calling a Kazi, although Dr. AbdulSalam was already married. She has stated that she did not want to getmarried with brother of the informant (Dr. Abdul Salam) as he was alreadymarried with another woman. Her statement under section 183 of B.N.S.S.(Section 164 of Cr.P.C.) is also recorded to that effect.12.The learned APP also submits that statement of Dr. Rafat w/o. HarunRashid Tamboli, aged 65 years, mother of the informant is also recordedwherein she mentioned that ex-corporator as well as other people gatheredat the place and have assaulted both his sons and also Dr. Neha and hadinsisted upon marriage of Dr. Neha with Dr. Abdul Salam. It is stated thatthe persons gathered there also grappled Dr. Neha and thay insisted uponDr. Neha to marry with Dr. Abdul Salam. Thereafter, they called Kazi to theplace and forcefully performed her marriage with Dr. Abdul Salam. In herstatement under section 183 of B.N.S.S. (Section 164 of Cr.P.C.), she hasalso stated that police were called and they also asked Dr. Neha thatwhether she is ready to marry, otherwise they will take her in custody andthereafter, they forcefully performed marriage of Dr. Neha with his son. ABA 240/25 & Ors613.Injury certificate is also produced of Dr. Abdul Rahaman, informant,who suffered fracture on left chest and 9th and 10th ribs and has sufferedgrievous injury.14.Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, at the outset, it canbe said that assault is made by the applicants on informant, her mother andDr. Neha. Informant has not stated anything about the incident of closeddoor interaction between Dr. Abdul Salam, brother of the informant and Dr.Neha. The complainant has suffered grievous injury in the assault by theapplicants. From the police papers produced before me, more particularly,from 164 statement (section 183 B.N.S.S.) of Dr. Neha and 164 statement(section 183 B.N.S.S.) of Dr. Rafat, mother of the informant, it transpiredthat the marriage of Dr. Neha and Dr. Abdul Salam was performed on thespot by the crowd. This forceful performance of the marriage in violation ofwishes of Dr. Neha and Dr. Abdul Salam and particularly, when Dr. AbdulSalam is already a married person attracts offence under various provisionsof penal law, more particularly sections 350 and 366 of I.P.C. (sections 129and 87 of B.N.S.). Informant has also suffered grievous injury and offenceunder section 117(2) of B.N.S. is also attracted and as such, at this stage ofinvestigation, prima facie no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bailto any of the persons, who have participated in the assault and areresponsible for the forceful marriage of Dr. Neha with Dr. Abdul Salam,under assumption that they were indulging in illicit relations.15.The crowd has no right to interfere in the personal life of the doctorsand force them to marry. Considering this aspect of the matter andconsidering that the informant has sustained grievous injury of fracture to ABA 240/25 & Ors7his ribs, anticipatory bail cannot be granted to the applicants. In view of thediscussion made above, the applications are dismissed. 16.It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limitedto the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Courtshall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by theobservations made hereinabove. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.]SSC/