Allowed

Sayyad Minazuddin and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC13 Aug 2009APPLN/3308/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application, the Court granted anticipatory bail to co-applicants facing arrest under section 306 read with 34 of IPC. The proceedings arose from dowry-related allegations where the co-accused husband committed suicide. The Court held it was a fit case for bail as no recovery was involved.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on executing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties, with conditions to attend police station daily initially and then fortnightly.

Sayyad Minazuddin and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3308 OF 2009

¶4

Sayyad Minazuddin Sayyad Kamaluddin Sayad Kamaluddin Sayyad Sirjajuddin ......... Applicants versus

¶5

The State of Maharashtra ........Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Raghuvanshi Sr. adv. for the Applicants Mr. H.J. Dedhia APP. for the Respondent/State. Mr. Anilkumar Patil adv. for original complainant.

¶7

CORAM: A. P DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 13th August, 2009.

¶8

P. C.:

¶9

One Shahana since deceased, is sister of applicant no.1 and daughter of applicant no.2. She was married to one Shahid Anwar, since deceased in the year 1998. After a period of about ten years, Shahana suffered burn injuries on 30-11-2008. Her husband Shahid while trying to extinguish the fire, also suffered burn injuries. Shahana was admitted to hospital and she succummed to the burn injuries and expired on 12-12-2008. On account of the death, FIR came to be lodged by the present applicant no.2 on 16-1-2009. Police registered offence under section 306 read with 498-A of IPC. Shahid the husband of the deceased and his father came to be arrested. The news was

¶10

¶11

carried in local news papers and thus Shahid and his father were defamed in the society. Shahid committed suicide on 30-5-2009 and left a note behind wherein it is stated that at no point of time, any demand for dowry was made and unnecessarily a false case has been filed by the present applicant no.2, making allegations of demand of dowry. It is then stated in the note left behind by Shahid that he and his family was defamed. It is also stated that he had suffered about 40% burn injuries which left him almost crippled. For these reasons stated in the note left behind by Shahid, an FIR came to be filed by the complainant i.e. father of Shahid in the present case, and an offence under sec. 306 read with 34 or IPC came to be registered. Hence in the above set of facts, the present application has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the applicants are apprehending arrest in the said case for offence under section 306 read with 34 of IPC.

¶12

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that they have not committed any offence by filing FIR on account of death of Shahana. It is also submitted that Shahid and his father were released on bail on 12-1-2009 and Shahid has committed suicide on 30-5-2009. It is then contended that out of marital wedlock of Shahana and Shahid, a daughter is born by name Lubu who is now aged about 11/12/ years and is staying along with applicant no.2. It is then submitted that in the facts of the present case, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary and hence a prayer for anticipatory bail is pressed in service.

¶13

The learned APP has opposed the application so also the

¶14

¶15

learned counsel appearing for the complainant. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am of the clear view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. More so, as no recovery is to be made from the applicant. I therefore pass the following order.

¶16

In the event of arrest of the applicants or either of them in C.R. No.I-31/09 of Malegaon city police station for offence under section 306 read with 34 of IPC, he be released on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall attend the Malegaon city police station, Nashik daily for a period of one week from 14-08-2009 in between 4 to 6 p.m. and co-operate in investigation, and thereafter they shall attend once a fortnight for a period of two months or till filing of the charge sheet whichever is earlier.

Sayyad Minazuddin and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayyad Minazuddin and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Annasaheb Narayan Pawar Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivaji Sarang Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

vishal achutrao havale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jucian D'Souza Rayappan Vs the State Ofmaharashtra

Prakash Sadashiv Salvi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mehul Dilip Doshi Vs the State of Maharashtra