Allowed

Shaikh Rizwana Shaikh Meheboob v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jan 2014APPLN/345/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application concerned an accused in a murder case. The High Court examined the dying declaration and determined the applicant's role was limited to holding the deceased's hair. The court granted bail by segregating her role from the others, whom it held to be the actual perpetrators who set the deceased on fire.

What did the court decide?

[1] Applicant released on bail in Rs. 25,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount. [2] Must not leave jurisdiction without Trial Court's permission. [3] Application disposed of.

Shaikh Rizwana Shaikh Meheboob Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Cri. Appln. No. 345/14

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 345 OF 2014

¶5

Shaikh Rizwana Shaikh Maheboob

¶6

....Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

....Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.B. Bhange, APP for State.

¶11

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : 29th January, 2014.

¶12

ORDER :

¶13

Heard learned counsel Mr. Joydeep Chatterji for the applicant and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. D.B. Bhange for the State.

¶14

The applicant is one of the accused of the offence punishable under section 302 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. In all there are four accused. Accused No. 1 is husband of deceased. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are parents in law of deceased and accused No. 4 (applicant) is the first wife of accused No. 1. The deceased was second wife of accused No. 1.

¶15

Cri. Appln. No. 345/14

¶16

¶17

The chargesheet is filed. Case of the prosecution is mainly based on the dying declaration of the deceased Sameena Shaikh Maheboob. The deceased Sameena in her dying declaration has stated that her mother in law and the applicant held her hair on the ground that she was not looking after properly the children of first wife of accused No. 1. Thereafter, accused No. 1 brought a can containing kerosene oil and poured the same on the deceased. The father in law i.e. accused No. 2 brought a match box and handed over the same to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 thereafter set the deceased on fire. The deceased died due to septicemia due to burn injuries.

¶18

It is submitted by Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for the applicant that since the parents in law of applicant, husband of applicant and applicant herself are lodged in prison, there is nobody to look after the children of the applicant and the deceased. It is further submitted by the learned advocate that the role of the applicant can be segregated from the role of other accused inasmuch as the applicant had only held the hair of the deceased and thereafter kerosene was poured on her by accused No. 1.

¶19

As such the kerosene was poured by the husband and

¶20

Cri. Appln. No. 345/14

¶21

¶22

deceased was set on fire by the husband by means of a match stick brought by father in law of the deceased.

¶23

I have carefully examined the dying declaration of the deceased. It is possible to segregate the role of applicant from the role of other accused because she had only pulled hair of the deceased. The deceased was held by her mother in law. The learned Assistant Public Prosecutor Mr. D.B. Bhange has submitted that the role of the applicant cannot be segregated inasmuch as there was common intention on the part of all the applicants.

¶24

As already stated, the possibility of segregating the applicant cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the applicant has to look after her own children and the children of second wife (deceased) of accused No. 1. The children are at the mercy of other relatives at present.

¶25

In view thereof, I am inclined to grant bail to the applicant. Hence, I pass the following order.

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

(i) Applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶28

Cri. Appln. No. 345/14

¶29

¶30

(ii) She shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Trial Court without prior permission of the Trial Court.

¶31

(iii) Application stands disposed of.

¶32

[ M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.]

¶33

ssc/

Shaikh Rizwana Shaikh Meheboob v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Rizwana Shaikh Meheboob v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Ramesh Raoji Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Mahadev Tajanpure Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Sheelabai Gangadhar Nachan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Ashok Chide Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Madhukar Khajekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagatsing Virji Vasave and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra