High Court
Legal Reasoning
1843.2024ABA.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.908 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 843 OF 2024Amrin Salma Shaikh Alim ..APPLICANT -VERSUS-1.State of Maharashtra2.The Superintendent of Police..RESPONDENTS ...Advocate for Applicant : Mr.S.J. Salunke APP for Respondent/State: Mr.P.K. Lakhotiya Advocate for assisting P.P. : Ms.Siddhi Kothari h/f Mr.S.G. Ladda...CORAM :SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.DATE :4th July, 2024. P.C.:1.The applicant apprehends arrest in connection with FIR No.413of 2023 registered with Ambajogai (City) Police Station, Dist. Beed forthe offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 201 read with 34of the Indian Penal Code (For short, “IPC”).2.It is the prosecution’s case that the informant is maternal uncleof the applicant. Deceased Jakia Begum was sister of the informant.She was residing with her daughter i.e. the applicant due tomatrimonial discord with her husband (accused no.2). It is alleged thaton 22nd October, 2023, Jakia Begum was found dead. On the next dayin the presence of the informant and other relatives, the funeral ofJakia Begum was performed. It is alleged that during last bath of pre-funeral, niece of the informant Shabana noticed injuries on forehead
Legal Reasoning
2843.2024ABA.odtand ligature marks on the neck of deceased. Therefore, she snappedthe photographs of the said injuries in her mobile handset. Thereafter,the last rites were performed. It is alleged that after death of JakiaBegum one diary was found in her room. In the said diary, JakiaBegum has written that she was harassed by the applicant and co-accused her husband. Therefore, the complaint was filed against theapplicant and her husband. After complaint dead body of the deceasedwas exhumed, postmortem of dead body was done, in postmortemreport cause of death is given “evidence of head injury in the form ofsubarachnoid hemorrhage and under scalp contusion with cerebraledema, however, final opinion pending for accessory examinationreport.” It is alleged that the applicant, her husband and husband ofdeceased hatched conspiracy and committed murder of the deceasedby throttling and by hitting on her head with blunt object. 3.It is contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that theapplicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The learned counselfurther submitted that the alleged diary written by the deceased JakiaBegum is recovered after two days of the incident. It is planted diary asJakia Begum used to sign in Urdu whereas in said diary her signatureis in Hindi. There is no reason to the applicant to harass her mother.The learned counsel further submitted that on the complaint of theinformant, the dead body of Jakia was exhumed and her postmortem 3843.2024ABA.odtis done. In the postmortem report no external injuries are found on herbody. The learned counsel further submitted that this Court hasreleased two co-accused on regular bail. While allowing the bailapplication this Court (Coram : Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.) has observedthat, it appears that death of the deceased is not homicidal. This bailorder is confirmed by Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel furthersubmitted that her death may have been caused because of naturalcause as the deceased was suffering from blood pressure and othervarious ailments. She had suffered trauma due to which her death iscaused, but due to family dispute the applicant has been implicated inthis case, her custodial interrogation is not required, hence requestedto allow the application.4.It is the contention of the learned APP along with learnedcounsel for assist to P.P. that the applicant along with co-accusedwould harass the deceased. She has mentioned all these incidents inher daily diary. The learned APP further submitted that deceased hadno reason to write false incident against the applicant. The learnedcounsel further submitted that the cause of death of deceased is death“due to head injury in the form of subarachnoid haemorrhage andunderscalp contusion with histopathological evidence ofatherosclerosis of left anterior descending artery”. The said injury wascaused due to hitting by any blunt object on her head. All the injuries 4843.2024ABA.odtwere antemortem injuries. The death of the deceased is homicidaldeath. The learned APP further submitted that charge of conspiracy islevelled against the applicant. Custodial interrogation of the applicantis required to investigate where conspiracy is hatched and to recoverthe weapon used in crime. Moreover deceased was lastly residing withapplicant and death is caused in house of the applicant, hencerequested to reject the application.5.I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R. andpolice papers produced on record.6.In the postmortem report of the deceased no external injuriesfound on her body. Though it is alleged in the F.I.R. that some ligaturemarks were noticed on the neck of the deceased and the deceasedwas throttled and her head was hit by hard object, but no sign ofthrottling or hitting of hard object on head of the deceased found inpostmortem report. This Court (Coram : Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.) whilepassing the order in Bail Application of co-accused has observed thatin absence of any injury to scalp and skull of the deceased, is notsufficient to infer that it is homicidal death. The said bail order waschallenged in the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is confirmed. In my viewno external injuries were found on the body of the deceased, in theabsence of any external injury, it can not be said that it is homicidal 5843.2024ABA.odtdeath. To prove the cause of death evidence of medical expert isrequired. Moreover, funeral of the deceased was done in presence ofthe informant and his brothers. The applicant and her husbandimmediately informed about the death of deceased to the familymembers though it is alleged that some injuries were noticed on neckand forehead of the deceased but no immediate complaint was lodgednor postmortem report supports this contention. It is alleged that diaryof deceased has been found. In the said diary, it is mentioned that theapplicant and her husband was harassing her. In my view, it does notappear from police papers that in her life time, the deceased hadcomplained about harassment by the applicant and her husband.Whether hand writing in diary is of the deceased or not is part of trial.All the incriminating material have been seized by the police. It is thecontention of the learned APP that to recover the weapon used incrime and to know about the place of conspiracy custody of theapplicant is required. In my view, other two co-accused have beenarrested by the police. One of them is husband of the applicant, he andother co-accused were remanded for police custody, nothing wasrevealed or recovered from them when they were in police custody.They have been released on regular bail. Investigation is almostcompleted. Considering these aspects, custody of the applicant is notrequired and I pass the following order :- 6843.2024ABA.odtORDER(i)The application is allowed.(ii)In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with FIRNo.413 of 2023 registered with Ambajogai (City) Police Station, Dist.Beed for the offences punishable under sections 302, 120-B, 201 readwith 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicant be released onexecuting personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one surety ofthe like amount, on the following conditions :-(a)the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as andwhen required by the Investigating Officer. [ SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J. ] sga