Allowed

Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jun 2021BA/1691/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed bail to the applicant in a criminal bail application. The court found the prosecution case weak as the FIR and dying declaration indicated the deceased poured petrol on herself. Considering the lack of eyewitnesses and the applicant's custody with an infant, she was released on bond.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a ₹30,000 bond with one or two sureties in the like amount; cash bail permitted initially.

Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

27-BA-1691-2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1691 OF 2021

¶4

Gulfasha @Alisha Mehraj Shaikh .... Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent

¶5

Mr. Aniket Vagal, for the applicant. Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶6

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 18^th JUNE, 2021 (Through Video Conferencing)

¶7

P.C. : 1. The applicant is seeking her release on bail in

¶8

connection with C.R.No. 444 of 2020 registered at Nigadi Police Station, Pune, on 20/11/2020 under sections 307, 306, 494, 498(A), 504, 511 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant was arrested on 19/11/2020 and since then she is in custody. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is fled.

¶9

Heard Mr. Aniket Vagal, learned counsel for the

¶10

applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

y.s.patil

1 of 5

27-BA-1691-2021.odt

The FIR was lodged by the deceased Sheetal Banpatte herself. Her statement was recorded as F.I.R. As she died subsequently, it now becomes a Dying Declaration. She has stated that she got married to one Sachin Banpatte and they had a daughter. They had got married in the year 2014. In January 2020, the informant came to know that her husband was having extra marital affair with the present applicant. For that reason there used to be quarrels between the informant and her husband. The informant came to know that, her husband had got married secretly with the present applicant. After coming to know this, she was under mental pressure. On 19/11/2020, the informant carried petrol in a bottle. She went to the house of the present applicant. While going there, she poured kerosene on herself. She had kept a matchbox with her. She stood in the door of the applicant’s house. She picked up a quarrel with the applicant. In the meantime, there was a scufe between the applicant and her sister on one hand and the

y.s.patil

2 of 5

27-BA-1691-2021.odt

informant on the other hand. During that scufe, matchbox fall down. It is further alleged that the applicant lit a match stick causing fre, because of petrol which the informant had already poured on herself. She suffered burn injuries. She started running towards a government hospital which was nearby. She lodged her FIR after she was admitted in the hospital.

¶19

Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR itself shows that the informant was holding serious grudge against the applicant. The informant had herself poured petrol on herself. She had carried the match box. Therefore her intention to implicate the applicant in a false case is more than clear. He submitted that the applicant has a son who is 10 months old. The child is with the applicant in the jail. There is weak evidence against the present applicant. There are no eye witnesses. In this background, the applicant deserve to be released on bail.

¶20

Learned APP left the decision of this application

y.s.patil

3 of 5

27-BA-1691-2021.odt

to the discretion of this Court on humanitarian ground.

¶25

I have considered these submissions. With the

¶26

assistance of both learned Counsel, I have perused the charge-sheet. As rightly submitted by learned Counsel for the applicant, there are no witnesses who have stated that the applicant had used a match stick to set the deceased ablaze. There are statements of witnesses like Chandrabhaga Shinde, Malini Pawar and Anita Kshirsagar who had seen the deceased already having caught fre. She was running towards the hospital.

¶27

The FIR-Dying Declaration of the deceased herself also mentioned that it was the deceased who had poured petrol on herself and had carried a matchbox. Therefore, at this stage sufcient doubt is created against the prosecution case. The applicant is a lady. She is in custody since 19/11/2020. The investigation is over and the charge-sheet is fled. She is in jail alongwith her 10 months old son. Considering all these

y.s.patil

4 of 5

27-BA-1691-2021.odt

aspects, the applicant deserves to be released on bail.

¶32

8. Hence the following order.

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) In connection with C.R. No. 444 of 2020 registered with Nigadi Police Station, Pune, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(ii) Looking at the prevailing circumstances, it may not be possible for the applicant to furnish sureties immediately. Therefore, initially the applicant is permitted to furnish cash bail for the same amount. The applicant will have to furnish the sureties, as directed, within three months from today.

¶36

(iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶38

y.s.patil

¶39

5 of 5

Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gulfasha @ Alisha Mehraj Shaikh 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

Ganesh Jagannath Tikole Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankarava Sangappa Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Uttam Gholap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban Eknath Mukane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sameer Ashok Sanas Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjit Dattatray Karande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.