High Court
Facts
357.2024BA-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD908 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 20241.Nasim Begum Shaikh Jalal2.Shaikh Jalal Shaikh Karim ..APPLICANTS -VERSUS-The State of Maharashtra..RESPONDENT ...Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Shinde Dhananjay M. APP for Respondent/State : Mr.Satish A. Gaikwad Advocate assisting to the P.P. : Mr. A.A. Yadkikar ….. WITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1415 OF 2024IN BAIL APPLICATION NO. 357 OF 2024 Shaikh Mehmood Abdul Rahim ..APPLICANT -VERSUS-The State of Maharashtraand others...RESPONDENTS …Advocate for applicant : Mr. A.A. Yadkikar Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3: Mr. Shinde Dhananjay M. APP for Respondent/State : Mr.Satish A. Gaikwad ... CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 3rd MAY, 2024. PER COURT :- 1.For the reasons stated in the application, CriminalApplication No.1415 of 2024 for assisting to the prosecution isallowed. 357.2024BA-2- 2.The applicant is seeking bail under section 439 of theCriminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”). The applicanthas been arrested in connection with crime No.310 of 2023registered with Itwara Police Station, Dist. Nanded, for the offencespunishable under sections 302, 304-B, 498-A read with 34 of theIndian Penal Code and under sections 3 and 4 of the DowryProhibition Act.3.It is averred in the report that the marriage of deceasedSaba Begum was performed with Shaikh Aslam Shaikh Hamit on14.10.2022. Applicant no.1 is the sister of Shaikh Aslam andapplicant no.2 is her husband. After the marriage, Saba Begumstarted to cohabit with her husband. The husband and otherco-accused were saying that she is black and short. Her hairs arealso short. She is not able to cook food. They were disliking her. 4.In the marriage, dowry of Rs.80,000/- was settled to bepaid, however, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid and remainingdowry amount of Rs.30,000/- was not paid because of pooreconomic condition of the parents of Saba Begum. The applicant andother accused started to demand that dowry. They were saying thatin marriage the parents of the deceased have not given Fridge andWashing Machine. Saba Begum told that fact of cruelty to herparents. Her father tried to convince her husband and familymembers that he is not having money to pay the remaining amount 357.2024BA-3- of dowry. He therefore tried to convince them that after he getmoney, he will pay that amount, but the family members of Sabawere not paying any heed to that request. Four months before theincident, Saba was dropped to her parents house by her husbandand she was warned that unless she brings the money, she shouldnot come to house. While she was in her parents house, she told herparents that for bringing the money, her husband caught hold herhairs and beaten her with stick and caused injury to her back byburning cigarette. He said that, “ काली रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींरांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींतू मेरेकों पसंद नहींमेरेकों पसंद नहींपसंद नहींनहीं. तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींने पैसेनहींलाए तो हम तुझे खतम कर देंगेतो हम तुझे खतम कर देंगेहमतुझेखतमकरद नहींेंगे”. Frequently she wasassaulted by utentials in the house. When she bring the food foreating, her father-in-law throw that food on her face. Her brother-in-law used to say that “ जबसेशाद नहींी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींकरकेहमारेघरमेंआई तब से हमारेतबसेहमारे घरकी बरकत चली गईबरकतचली रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींगई तब से हमारे”. Applicant Nasim Begum, who was residingin the same lane along with her husband used to treat Saba Begumwith cruelty. She used to say her mother that “ तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींतेरेदिद नहींलपेऐसी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहीं हो हम तुझे खतम कर देंगेड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींबकरी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींबहू मेरेकों पसंद नहींकरकेलाई तब से हमारे. ई तब से हमारेससेजाद नहींाअच्छी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींलड़की बरकत चली गईदिमलती रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींथी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींऔर द नहींहेजनी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींजाद नहींालाती रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहींथी रांड तू मेरेकों पसंद नहीं". The applicants were frequently beating SabaBegum and saying her that she will be set ablaze if she failed to paythe remaining amount of dowry. Daughter of informant Saba Begumused to say that do not sent her to the matrimonial home, otherwisethey will set her ablaze. Matter was thereafter settled on 10.08.2023 357.2024BA-4- in the presence of some relatives. They were convincing Saba forcohabitation. On 19.09.2023, the son of informant has went to thehouse of deceased for paying an amount of Rs.10,000/- and he paidthat amount of Rs.10,000/- to the applicant no.1. Thereafter, son ofinformant told that the deceased Saba was treated frequently withcruelty. 5.On 04.10.2023 at about 8.40 p.m. applicant no.2 madephone call to the informant and told that Saba slept at 1.00 p.m. andshe did not woke up yet. She is not speaking. Therefore, she wastaken to the civil hospital. Then all of them went there and saw thatSaba is dead and there were so many injuries around her person.There were burn injuries to her face, neck, wrist, back and legs. Thereport was lodged on the second day of incident. 6.The learned advocate for the applicants submits that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime because they areresidents of the same locality. There is no such material evidenceagainst them. The applicants have roots in the society. They will notflee away from the trial. Trial would take long period. The learnedadvocate lastly prayed to allow the application on the principle thatbail is rule and jail is exception. 7.The learned APP for the respondent-State and learnedadvocate assisting to the prosecution strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that incident took place in the house of the
Legal Reasoning
357.2024BA-5- applicants. Saba Begum sustained not only burn injuries to infer hersuicide but there are cut injuries to her. The statement of neighourertenant of the husband of Saba shows that both the applicants wereresiding there and they were coming frequently . They were involvedin this serious crime. The postmortem report shows 19 burn and cutinjuries. Considering serious nature of crime, strong prima facieevidence against the applicants, it is lastly prayed to reject theapplication. 8.Perused the charge-sheet, particularly postmortemreport and statement of the tenant of the husband of Saba, whoheard the cry of Saba at the relevant time. The statement is veryspecific which prima facie constitute the ingredients of section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code. The applicants are admittedly residing inthe one and the same village and statement of this witness recordedby the Police clarifies that the applicants are involved in the saidcrime. No doubt, the statement of said witness recorded undersection 164 of Criminal Procedure Code shows that on 04.10.2022she had seen that applicant nos.1 and 2 were carrying Saba fromone room to another room. That time on her inquiry they said thatshe is suffering from illness. Thereafter, the incident took place. 9.No doubt at this stage meticulous consideration ofevidence is not necessary. However, the incident took place in thehouse of the husband of Saba and there is strong material against 357.2024BA-6- the applicants and other accused. Considering all these facts andratio laid down in the cases of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of UttarPradesh and another, (2022) 8 SCC 559 and Shahzad HasanKhan Vs. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and another, (1987) 2 SCC 684, theapplicants are certainly not entitled for bail. Considering all thesereasons the application deserves to be rejected. Accordingly it isrejected. 10.The incidents of causing cruelty to the married womanare increasing. However, in our country, there is no such socialinstitution, who is conducting the training of pre-marriage counsellingfor the husband and wife to control their emotions. Institution likeTata Social Sciences etc., Department of Social Justice of the StateGovernment has to consider this aspect that before the marriage, thespecial training/counselling as to how to behave with each other isnecessary. Our culture is to continuously love after marriage byexcusing mistakes of each other. It is a behavioural pattern of oursociety which has built the family institutions for many thousandyears. 11.It is made clear that the observations made in this orderare prima facie in nature and the trial court shall not get influencedwhile conducting the trial. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) sga