SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Abdul Saleem Abdul Kareem Shaikh … vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 March, 2020

aba-182-20.doc

Nalawade A.S.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2020

Abdul Saleem Abdul Kareem Shaikh and ors. ..Applicants.
vs.
State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondents.

Mr. Ram Satalwar i/by Shabnam Shaikh for the Applicants.
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, APP for the State.

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR J.
DATE : 20th March, 2020

PC:

1. This is an application for pre-arrest bail under

Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The applicants are arraigned for

offences punishable under Section 498A and 406 of the Indian

Penal Code for having subjected Mrs. Rafatnaj, first informant,

wife of applicant No. l to cruelty in order to coerce her to meet

unlawful demand of a sum of Rs.3.00 lacs for the purpose of

giving the said amount as deposit to take a room on rent. The

applicant Nos. 2 to 6 are the relatives of applicant No.1.
1/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

2. The gravamen of indictment against the applicants

is that after about one year of marriage, the applicant No.1

started to harass the first informant at the instance of co-

accused. The applicants made a demand of sum of Rs.3.00 lacs

for paying the same as deposit. The financial position of the first

informant’s father was not sound. As the first informant could

not meet the demand, the first informant was subjected to

harassment. Lastly on 4.12.2018, the applicant No.1 assaulted

the first informant for not meeting the demand of money. The

hairs of the first informant were cut. Her face was blackened.

She was left at Bhiwandi against her will. It is further alleged

that the applicant No1 had removed ornaments from the person

of the first informant. Hence, the first informant lodged the

report with Ganeshpuri Police Station, Bhiwandi vide CR

No.147/2019 on 12.10.2019.

3. The applicants assert that they are falsely

implicated. The first informant has left the matrimonial home on

2/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

her own . The first informant had filed an application in the

Court of Learned Magistrate at Bhiwandi under the provisions of

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,2005 being

Application No.122/2017. The first informant, however,

withdrew, the said proceeding and started to reside with the

applicant No.1 separately. In fact, the first informant’s conduct

was the cause of matrimonial discord. The applicant Nos. 2 to

6 have never subjected the first informant to cruelty and

harassment. The applicant Nos. 2,4 and 6 are pardanashin

ladies. Thus, the applicants be directed to be released on bail in

the event of their arrest.

4. The applicants had initially filed an application for

pre-arrest bail before the learned Sessions Judge,Thane.

Initially ad-interim protection was granted to the applicant Nos.

2 to 6. However, since the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 did not abide by

the conditions of the order, by which the interim protection was

granted, the learned Sessions Judge rejected the application by

an order dated 9.1.202

3/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

5. Learned counsel for the applicants urged that from

the very allegations in the FIR, it becomes clear that there on

was no cruelty or harassment at the hands of the applicants and

the first informant has made wild allegations so as to rope in the

applicants.

6. Learned APP submitted that the fact that the

applicant Nos. 2 to 6, who were granted interim protection, did

not co-operate with the Investigation agency, by itself is

sufficient to disentitle them the discretionary relief of pre-arrest

bail. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the

applicant Nos. 2 to 6 did not attend the police station for want

of communication from the learned counsel who appeared

before the Sessions Court.

7. From the perusal of the material on record it

becomes evident that the marriage of the applicant No.1 with

the first informant was besetted with marital discord. There

were efforts to resolve dispute and resume cohabitation. The

4/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

first informant had, in fact, lodged the proceedings under the

provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence

Act,2005 and subsequently withdrew the same on the assurance

that she will be treated well. The first informant alleged that

despite the said assurance the applicant No.1 subjected her to

cruelty and harassment. The last of the acts of cruelty is of

4.12.2018. The applicant No.1 husband is alleged to have

abused, assaulted and humiliated the first informant on

4.12.2018 and also relieved her of all the ornaments. In the

backdrop of aforesaid allegations a prima facie case can be said

to have been made out against the applicant No.1.

8. The case of applicant Nos. 2 to 6, however, sands on

different footing. The allegations against the applicant Nos. 2

to 6 are of general and omnibus in nature. In the circumstances,

the custodial interrogation of the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 is not

warranted.

9. The fact that the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 did not attend

5/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

the police station and co-operate with the investigation agency,

when interim protection was granted during the pendency of the

application before the learned Sessions Judge, Thane, is

required to be considered in the backdrop of the material on

record. The material on record does not squarely incriminate

the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 and thus their custodial interrogation is

not warranted. I am therefore inclined to exercise the discretion

in favour of applicant Nos. 2 to 6. Hence, the following order.

ORDER

a) The application for pre-arrest bail of applicant No.1

Abdul Saleem Abdul Kareem Shaikh stands rejected.

b) The application of applicant Nos. 2 to 6 stands

allowed.

c) In the event of arrest of applicant Nos. 2 to 6 in CR

No.147/2019 registered with Ganeshpuri Police Station, Thane

of the offences punishable under Sections 498A an 406 of the
6/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::
aba-182-20.doc

I.P.C., the applicant Nos. 2 to 6 be released on bail on their

furnishing PR bond of Rs.10,000/- each and a surety in the like

amount.

d) The applicant Nos. 2 to 6 shall co-operate with the

investigation agency and attend the Ganeshpuri Police Station

on every alternate Sunday from 10.00 a.m. to 12.00 noon, with

effect from 5th April, 2020 for a period of two months.

e) The applicant Nos. 2 to 6 shall not tamper with the

prosecution evidence and give any threat or inducement to the

first informant.

Application stands accordingly disposed of.

[ N. J. JAMADAR J.]

7/7
20th March,2020

::: Uploaded on – 20/03/2020 21/03/2020 11:41:29 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation