Partly allowed

Mohammad Parvez S/O Mohammad Farooque and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Juni Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur

Bombay HC10 Apr 2024ABA/208/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court partly allowed the criminal application for anticipatory bail. Bail was rejected for applicant No.1 due to specific allegations of harassment instigating suicide, but granted to applicants Nos.2 and 3 upon executing a bond, subject to conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed for Applicants No.2 and 3 on Rs.25,000 bond; prayer for No.1 rejected; conditions imposed regarding witnesses and attendance.

Mohammad Parvez S/O Mohammad Farooque and 2… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:4115

¶2

(1) 9.aba.208.2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.208 OF 2024

¶5

Mohammad Parvez s/o Mohammad Farooque and others

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Juni Kamptee, District Nagpur

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶9

Mr. Muzammil Husain, Advocate for applicants. Ms. H. N. Prabhu, APP for respondent /State.

¶10

CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J. DATED : 10/04/2024

¶11

Apprehending the arrest at the hands of police in connection with Crime No.160/2024, registered with Police Station Juni Kamptee, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants approached this Court for grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶12

Applicant No.1 is the husband and the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the deceased. It is alleged by the informant that his daughter Salma was married with the applicant No.1 on 07.06.2020 and she was blessed with one son. During her cohabitation with the applicant No.1, she was ill-treated by the applicant No.1 and her in-laws for the trifle reasons that she is not doing the household work properly. She was continuously harassed by the present applicants for illegal demand

¶13

(2) 9.aba.208.2024

¶14

and for the domestic reasons. Being fed up with the same, she committed suicide on 14.05.2023. On the basis of the said report, police have registered the crime against the present applicants.

¶15

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that general allegations are made against the applicants. In fact, the deceased was cohabited properly with the applicant No.1 and there was no dispute between them. Merely by taking disadvantage of the death of the deceased, this false FIR is lodged. The custodial interrogation of the presents is not required and they be protected by granting anticipatory bail.

¶16

Learned APP for the State strongly opposed the said application on the ground that the deceased has committed suicide within three years of her marriage and there is a specific allegation against the present applicant No.1, who used to assault her for the trifle reason and also demanded the amount unlawfully. On the basis of the same, the crime is registered. She submitted that considering the specific allegation against the applicant No.1, the application deserves to be rejected, who has instigated and abetted the deceased to commit the suicide.

¶17

Having heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State, perused the

¶18

(3) 9.aba.208.2024

¶19

recitals of the FIR. There is a specific allegation against the applicant No.1, who used to assault the deceased for the domestic reasons as well as by demanding the amount from time to time. She was also taken to the hospital on 14.05.2023, but she was declared dead. The deceased has committed suicide due to continuous harassment at the hands of the applicant No.1. As far as the applicant Nos.2 and 3 are concerned, general allegations are made against them that they used to instigate the applicant No.1 to harass the deceased.

¶20

Considering that no specific allegations are made against the applicant Nos.2 and 3, they can be protected by granting anticipatory bail. As far as the applicant No.1 is concerned, against whom the specific allegations are made and therefore, his custodial interrogation is required. In view of that, the application deserves to be allowed partly. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order.

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i)

¶23

The application is allowed partly.

¶24

(ii) In the event of arrest in connection with Crime No.160/2024, registered with Police Station Juni Kamptee, District Nagpur for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, applicant No.2. Nasreen Fatma w/o Mohammad Farooque and No.3 Mohammad

¶25

(4) 9.aba.208.2024

¶26

Farooque s/o Mohammad Khurshid shall be released on anticipatory bail, on executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/each with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶27

(ii) The prayer of anticipatory bail of applicant No.1 is hereby rejected.

¶28

(iii) The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall not induce, threat or promise any witnesses who are acquainted with the facts of the case.

¶29

(iv) The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when required for the investigation purpose.

¶30

The application is disposed of.

¶31

(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.)

¶32

Sarkate

Mohammad Parvez S/O Mohammad Farooque and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Juni Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Parvez S/O Mohammad Farooque and 2 Others v. the State of Maharashtra Thr. Pso Ps Juni Kamptee, Dist. Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh S/O. Kaielas Yadav Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Kalmeshwar, Nagpur Gramin, Dist. Nagpur.

Vivek S/O Arun Maske Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso Ps Tahsil Nagpur (City)

M/S. Veena Enterprises, Thr. Its Prop. Prakash S/O. Rameshchandra Sharma and Another. Vs Sangita W/O. Ramesh Sharma

Rajesh S/O. Abhimanyu Yesansure Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Chandur Railway, Dist. Amravati.

Mangesh S/O Manikrao Wadandre and Another vs Smt. Ankita Shravan Bansure

Pramod Ramlal Suryawanshi Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Durgapur Chandrapur Dist. Chandrapur and Another.