Allowed

Zafar Shaikh S/O. Shaikh Akhtar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC20 Dec 2021BA/1593/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court at Bombay Bench ordered bail for an accused charged with dowry-related offences and culpable homicide. The court held that criminal history does not disentitle the applicant from bail, allowing release on personal bond with sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with two solvent sureties each of Rs. 25,000.

Zafar Shaikh S/O. Shaikh Akhtar Vs the State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

(1)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.1593 OF 2021

¶4

Zafar Shaikh s/o Shaikh Akhtar

¶5

= APPLICANT

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

= RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.VD Sapkal, Sr.Counsel i/by Advocate Khizer
Patel, for Applicant;

¶10

Mr.AM Phule,APP for Respondent-State.

¶11

 -----

¶12

CORAM: SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI,J.
DATE : 20th December, 2021.

¶13

PER COURT :-

¶14

1.Present application has been filed under

¶15

Section 439 of Cr.P.C. by accused No.1, who has

¶16

been arrested in connection with CR No.65/2021
registered with Jinsi Police Station,

¶17

Dist.Aurangabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 498A and 323 of IPC.

¶18

2.Heard learned Advocate for the applicant

¶19

and learned APP for Respondent-State. In order to
cut short it can be stated that both of them have
made submissions in support of their respective
contentions.

¶20

(2)

¶21

3.Perusal of the FIR lodged by brother of

¶22

the deceased shows that the deceased was married to
present applicant in the year 2015, however, there
was talaq between them after 18 years. It is then
stated that after about eight months, she again
married to the present applicant and then they have
a daughter of four years old. It is then stated
that the applicant was harassing the deceased on
the count that the deceased has not brought dowry
for him. The deceased was subjected to ill-
treatment physically as well as mentally. The
deceased was 3rd wife of the applicant. There was
dispute on 27.1.2021; 28.2.2021 and 3.3.2021. The
present applicant gave a phone call to nephew of
the informant, stating that the deceased has
consumed some poisonous substance. She was then
taken to hospital, however, she succumbed.

¶23

4.From the contents of the FIR, it can be

¶24

seen that now nothing is required to be recovered
at the instance of the applicant. Merely because
the accused-applicant had not informed the things
immediately, it does not dis-entitle him from
claiming bail.

¶25

(3)

¶26

5.Learned APP strongly opposed the

¶27

application on the count that there is criminal
history of the present applicant and with three
police stations, several complaints have been filed
against the applicant.

¶28

.Even if we consider this aspect; yet
taking into consideration the present case, that
criminal history will not dis-entitle the applicant
from claiming bail as investigation of this crime
can go on even after the applicant is released on
bail. Hence, following order.

¶29

ORDER

¶30

i.The Bail Application stands

¶31

allowed.

¶32

ii.The applicant be released on
bail in connection with CR No.65/2021
registered with Jinsi Police Station,
Dist.Aurangabad for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498A and
323 of IPC on PR bond of Rs.50,000/-
(Rupees fifty Thousand) with two solvent
sureties of Rs.25,000/- each.

¶33

iii.The applicant shall attend the
concerned police station once in a week

¶34

(4)

¶35

between 10.00 AM to 2.00 PM.

¶36

iv.The applicant shall not indulge
in any criminal activity nor shall tamper
with the prosecution evidence in any
manner.

¶37

v.Along with submitting the bail
papers before the learned Trial Judge,
the applicant shall give his complete
address of the place of residence where
he intends to reside till end of the
trial.

¶38

vi.The applicant shall also give
the said information to the Investigating
officer along with mobile number and
shall comply with the requirements set
out in Para No.12 (1) to (6) of Chapter-I
of Criminal Manual, whichever are
applicable.

¶39

vii.Bail before the trial Court.

¶40

(SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI)
 JUDGE

¶41

BDV

Zafar Shaikh S/O. Shaikh Akhtar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zafar Shaikh S/O. Shaikh Akhtar 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 Manga @ Mangal Kadaskar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balaji Girmaji Warkare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit Gangadhar Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baswaraj Madhavrao Dharmaje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Baswaraj Madhavrao Dharmaje Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Uttam Haribhau Lonkar Vs Vinod Mohan Javak and Another