SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(Bom) 606

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Kingaonkar V.R., J.
Latifkan Karamkhan. … Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents.
Criminal Application No. 45920f2007,
Decided on 10/23-4-2008.

ADVOCATES APPEARED:
Vijay Shanna, for petitioner.
B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P., for respondent No. 1 -State. J.R. Shaikh, for respondents Nos. 2 & 3.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that bail should be granted only when there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, and the court should consider prima facie evidence and the potential influence of the accused on prosecution witnesses.

Headnote:

Bail - Mohammedan Law - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 437(1)(i)

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the grant of bail to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 who were accused of ill-treating and setting ablaze the deceased Jarinabi. The court analyzed the evidence and circumstances to determine the validity of the bail order.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the impugned bail order was unsustainable for respondent No. 2 but upheld the bail for respondent No. 3 based on the Proviso under section 437 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Issues: The key issue was whether the bail order was rendered without considering the basic requirements necessary for the grant of bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that bail is not a matter of right and should be granted only when there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The court also highlighted the importance of considering prima facie evidence and the potential influence of the accused on prosecution witnesses.

Final Decision: The application for cancellation of bail for respondent No. 2 was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed. The respondent No. 2 was to be arrested immediately. The application for cancellation of bail for respondent No. 3 was dismissed.

KINGAONKAR V.R., J.: - Original complainant impugns bail order dated 12th December, 2007 rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, on bail application (Criminal BA No. 1112 of 2007).

2. By the impugned order, learned Additional Sessions Judge granted bail application of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 and directed them to be released on furnishing bail bonds in sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one surety and on the certain conditions.

3. Undisputedly, deceased Jarinabi was married to respondent No. 2 – Shaikh Nasiroddin on 23rd April, 2006 as per the tenets of the Mohammedan law. After the marriage, Jarinabi started living with the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 at their residence Respondent No. 2 Nasiroddin is a Police Constable attached to Constabulary at Jalgaon. Jalgaori is about 28 kilometres from Bhusawal. It is about 30 minutes journey from Bhusawal to Jalgaon.

4. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that after one month of the marriage, deceased Jarinabi was ill-treated and harassed by the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They used to tease her by saying that she was not knowing domestic work, her father gave less dowry and used to beat her. She used to complain about the ill - treatment and harassment. Her father and other relatives used to plead with the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to treat her well. About 3-4 months prior to the incident, the respondent No.2. - Nasiruddin constructed a house in Khwajanagar locality. He had demanded an amount of Rs. one (1) lac from father of deceased Jarinabi, but the latter had given only Rs. 50,000/-.

5. In the evening of 9th October, 2007, there took place quarrel between deteased Jarinabi and the respondents Nos. 2 and 3. They asked her to get out of the house. She refused to leave the house. Her motherin-law (respondent No.3) then poured kerosene on her person from a canister and her husband (respondent No.2) set her ablaze by lighting a matchstick. She was caught by flames of fire. She was rushed to Civil - Hospital at Jalgaon in the same night. She - succumbed to .the bum injuries. She had - received 100 per cent bums. The police registered crime on basis of written dying declaration of Jarinabi which was recorded - immediately after her admission in the Civil - Hospital, Jalgaon. Both the respondents - Nos. 2 and 3 were arrested during investigation. The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 filed I 1 bail application alleging that the names have been falsely implicated in the F.I.R. They contended that deceased Jarinabi received bum injuries during an accident while cooking food. They asserted that it was due to bursting of stove that she received the bums: They further asserted that respondent No.2 Nasiruddin was on duty at Police Headquarters, Jalgaon at the time of said accident which occurred ot his residence in Bhusawal. He was on patrolling duty at the relevant time. Hel came to Bhusawal after receiving information regarding the accidental bums received by his wife. It was further asserted that respondent No.3 is old aged woman and has no concem with the commission of the alleged crime. On these premises, both the respondents sought bail. The bail application was strongly opposed by the State on ground that there is sufficient material to implicate both the respondents in serious crime and that they are likely to misuse the liberty. The learned Additional Sessions 1 Judge was pleased to grant bail to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

6. Clinching question is whether the impugned order is rendered without considering basic requirements necessary for grant of bail. The conditions laid down under section 437(1)(i) of the Criminal Procedure Code ought to be satisfied even while granting bail under section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Both these provisions fall under Chapter XXXIII of the Criminal (Procedure Code and ought to be read together. Sub-clause (i) of section 437(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code reads as follows :

"Section 437(1) *****

(i) Such person shall not be so released if there












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top