Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2025 · Bombaybench High Court
Case Details
(1)criapl200.25IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200 OF 2025MOHD. AMERUDDIN QHATIBVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSWITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 205 OF 2025XYZVSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERSMrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, Advocate a/w Smt. N. P. Thole, Advocatefor the appellant in Apl/205/25 and respondent No. inApl/200/25Mr. Chaitali Choudhari-Kutti, APP for the respondents/StateMr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant in Apl/200/25 andrespondent No.3 to 9 in apl/205/25CORAM:KISHORE C. SANT, J.RESERVED ON:08th JULY, 2025PRONOUNCED ON:18th AUGUST, 2025P. C. 1.Both the appeals are arising out of the same offenceand therefore, both are taken up together for final disposal. TheCriminal Appeal No. 200/2025 is by the original accused No 1seeking his release on bail in the event of his arrest in1 of 13
Legal Reasoning
(2)criapl200.25connection with crime No. 27/2025 dated 18-01-2025registered with City Chowk Police Station, Dist. ChhatrapatiSambhajinagar for the offences punishable under Sections 85,117(2), 318(4), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(u), 3(1)(w)(i), 3(1)(z) & 3(2)(va) of the SC &ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Criminal AppealNo.205/2025 is by the informant challenging the order dated28-02-2025 passed by the Special Judge SC & ST (POA) inCriminal Bail Application No. 259/2025 granting bail to accusedNos. 2 to 8 i.e. present respondent Nos. 3 to 9 in Apl/205/25 inthe above offence.2.The facts giving rise to the present appeals are asbelow.3.The informant who happens to be from ‘Tadvi’community (Scheduled Tribe) was firstly married with oneMohammad Iftekhar Khan in 2015. She begotten one childnamely Mohd. Atib Khan from the said wedlock. She took2 of 13 (3)criapl200.25divorce from her first husband. As she was a divorcee, oneperson namely Naim Sultana brought a proposal for marriagewith Ameruddin Qhatib-accused No.1. It was told that he ishaving good business in Dubai. His parents are residing atChhatrapati Sambhajinagar. Family is having landed property.He also assured that accused No.1 would take care of her son. Inview of personal meeting with the relatives of the accused No.1,they refused to take care of the child. The informant therefore,did not initially accept the proposal. The accused No.1 however,made up her mind assuming that he would take care even of ason, she married on 16-04-2023.4.It is the case of the informant that the marriage wasperformed. Accused No.1 took some amount from parents of theinformant under the pretext that he cannot bring more amountfrom Dubai because of some restrictions. In the marriage someamount and gold ornaments were also given. After marriage thecouple went to Dubai. There husband told that he lost his joband he is in search of a new job. He, therefore, requested the3 of 13 (4)criapl200.25informant to search for a job. She searched a job in one bank forherself. Later on, he took banking password of her account andstarted operating bank account of the informant. He did notallow the son of the informant be taken to Dubai. On 07-11-2023, in hurried manner they left for India. When she came toAirport she was informed that her clearance got failed as shehad not resigned a job. The husband however, went toBangalore by leaving her at the Airport at Dubai. Later on shemanged to come to India and went to Bangalore. In Bangalorehe again forced her to do a job for income. Thereafter, on 17-12-2023, they went to the house of the Ismat Mansoor Khan-accused No. 8 at Mumbai. There, the informant met her parentsand son. Thereafter, the husband took her to Delhi on 23-12-2023 at house accused No. 7- Anis Fatema and Ubed Khan-accused No.8. It found that after every 15-16 days accused No.1changing the cities. In March, 2024 husband with her, accusedbrother Mohammad ZiaUddin Qhatib accused No.5 went toBangalore from Pune. In Bangalore, the husband got loan ofRs.7 lakhs in the name of informant. He also used to take4 of 13 (5)criapl200.25amount from her salary account. It is further alleged thatthereafter couple came to Aurangabad. There, he again tooksome amount from parents of the informant. During this period,it is alleged that the husband was having unnatural sex with theinformant. It is further alleged that parents of the husband andother relatives were having pride of their higher caste. Thehusband always used to look her down. In the house she wascalled in the name of her caste insulting her. The relatives of thehusband did not allow her to clothes to be washed with theirclothes. She was allowed to use only one room in the house andwas not allowed to use other rooms. They did not allow her tomeet any other relatives. On such allegations she lodged the FIRon 18-01-2025.5.The accused persons approached the learnedSessions Court seeking bail in the event of their arrest. Thelearned Special Judge by order dated 28-08-2025 granted bail tothe accused Nos. 2 to 8. However, refused the bail to the extentof husband-present appellant. Thus, the appellant has5 of 13 (6)criapl200.25approached this court. The informant has filed an appeal No.205/2025 for cancellation of bail of accused Nos. 2 to 8.6.Mr. Salunke, Advocate for the appellant vehementlyargued that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate thatthere are no allegations making out a case under the AtrocitiesAct. The allegations are vague. If the appellant had anyintention because of the caste of the informant, he would nothave married her and taken her in his family. Getting marriedwith the informant itself shows that there is no question ofabusing or insulting the informant in the name of caste. He,thus, submits that a case is clearly made out for grant of bail inthe event of his arrest.7.About cancellation of bail of accused Nos. 2 to 8 hesubmits that FIR itself shows that husband and informant wereresiding in Dubai. Thereafter, they went to Bangalore for someperiod. She may have stayed with parents and in-laws. No anyspecific instances are quoted against any of the accused persons6 of 13 (7)criapl200.25specially accused Nos. 2 to 8. The learned trial court has rightlypassed the order granting bail to accused Nos.2 to 8. 8.Mrs. Rashmi Kulkarni, learned advocate for therespondent vehemently opposed the appeal for bail. In supportof her case, she argued that this is a clear case showing that theinformant was always humiliated and insulated in the name ofher caste. All the in-laws did not even allow her to share acommon room and asked her to confine to only one room givento her. This itself shows that humiliating and insulting treatmentgiven to the informant. The husband initially showed her rosypicture of the family. It is only after the marriage, he startedshowing true colors. She was taken to Dubai under the pretextthat the husband is having a good family business. It is onlyafter going to Dubai, she realized that he is not having anybusiness and does not have even a job in Dubai. He lived on theincome of the informant. She herself was working as aDivisional Manager. She was exploited financially as well.Though she happens to be a member of the family, she was7 of 13 (8)criapl200.25given a different treatment. All the allegations clearly makesout a case against the appellant and still the learned court failedto appreciate this aspect. She therefore, submits that even thebail granted to the accused Nos. 2 to 8 deserve to be cancelled.So far as refusal of the bail to accused No.1, she submits that thelearned court has rightly refused the bail.9.The learned APP has produced on record the papersof investigation. She opposes the Appeal No. 200/2025submitting that no case is made out for release on bail. Thelearned APP supports the Appeal No. 205/2025 submitting thata case is made out to cancel the bail. 10.This court has heard the parties. The allegations ofthe wife-informant are that respondents-husband and relativesof the husband happens to be person belonging to open categoryhaving caste as ‘Qhatib’. In the information she has stated thatshe belongs to scheduled tribe and her brother is having acertificate of scheduled tribe. The allegations appear that the8 of 13 (9)criapl200.25informant was suddenly taken to Dubai by the husband. Somephotographs showing that all accused are residing together.There are allegations of financial exploitation. The informantwas not allowed to come in the house amounting to an offencesection 3(2)(va) & 3(1)(w)(i) of the Atrocities Act. It is furthercase of the informant that after the accused persons are releasedon bail they started threatening the informant. They have alsoviolated the bail conditions. It is, for this, bail deserves to becancelled.11.This court has gone through the FIR and materialwhich is placed on record. It appears that material allegationsare against accused No.1. Though it is argued there areoverwhelming circumstances to cancel the bail, this court findsthat no such case is made out. Accused No.6-Aleena is Dentist &accused No.8-Ubed is a Veterinary Doctor & accused No.9-Ismatis also a Doctor. Relatives are residing at different places. In caseof breach of conditions the informant has to approach the samecourt where the bail was granted. It is further seen that now the9 of 13 (10)criapl200.25charge-sheet is submitted. The wife herself is an educatedperson who worked in Dubai and Bangalore. Merely because ofsome utterance in the name of caste alleged against accused No.1 will not be sufficient to attract the provision of Atrocities Act.This court has seen the photographs. In the photographs thecouple is seen at various places in a good mood. However, thatitself is not sufficient at this stage to come to any conclusion asthose are the photographs prior to dispute.12.So far as other material is concerned, the policepaper shows that there are statements of brother, father &mother of the informant stating about the treatment given toinformant. There is also a medical certificate showing that thereis sexual violence. There are signs of violence on the informant.It shows biting marks, pinching marks, violent shaking, kicking,pulling hairs, banging head and and dragging. It is also observedthat signs of unnatural sex are found. Penetration is found inanas and mouth. It is thus, seen that there is certainly somematerial to show sexual violence. The statements of the relatives10 of 13
Legal Reasoning
(11)criapl200.25of the informant though are hearsay, however are consistent.There are other offences. The proceeding started under the DVAct by the informant. There are certain documents showing thatamount from the account of the informant is withdrawn byaccused No.1. It is tried to show that husband is also earningperson having amount in the account. For some difficulty hecould not withdraw the amount as it was blocked. Ultimatelywhat is seen, is that the informant was exploited evenfinancially. The husband has filed affidavit stating that he isobeying the conditions. He has surrendered passport etc.13.Mr. Salunke, learned advocate relied upon twojudgments in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand 1 and Sidharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs State of Maharashtra andothers 2 . In the case of Hitesh (supra) the allegations were thatthere was an abuse in the name of caste. In that case there wasproperty dispute between accused and the informant. The courtin that view observed that merely because a person happens to1AIR 2020 SC 55842(2011) 1 SCC 69411 of 13 (12)criapl200.25be persons from the scheduled caste, that itself is not sufficientto show that case falls under the Atrocities Act. In the case ofSiddharam (supra) the Hon’ble Apex court has considered theprovision of anticipatory bail, right of the victim personal libertyetc.14.In the present case after going through the materialthis court finds that certainly there are allegations against thehusband showing that he exploited the wife physicallyeconomically and sexually. So far as other relatives areconcerned, the allegations would not show that case would fallunder the Atrocities Act. Therefore, this court finds that thelearned Sessions Judge has rightly rejected the application of theaccused No. 1-husband and has rightly granted the bail toaccused Nos. 2 to 8. No case is made out calling for interferencein the impugned order. Both the criminal appeals, therefore,stand dismissed. [KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/criapl200.2512 of 13 (13)criapl200.25Later On:1.At this stage, Mr. Salunke, learned advocate for theappellant prays for continuation of interim relief which is inoperation.2.The learned advocate for the respondent heavilyobjected for continuation of interim relief.3.Considering that interim relief is running since 24-03-2025 in Cri. Appeal No.200/2025, same is continued for fourweeks from today.[KISHORE C. SANT, J.]VishalK/criapl200.2513 of 13