IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Prakash D. Naik, J.
Kaushlya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Bail Application No. 718 of 2021
Decided On : 01-04-2021
Bail - Offences under Sections 306, 498-A IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sections 306, 498-A, 34 - The court discussed the gravity of the offences, the need for custodial interrogation, and the abuse of process of law by the applicants in seeking bail. The court emphasized the necessity of following due process of law and rejected the bail application.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was allegedly harassed by the accused, leading to her suicide. The applicants sought bail after their anticipatory bail application was rejected, and they surrendered before the court. However, their bail applications were repeatedly rejected by various courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the applicants were attempting to circumvent the legal process by repeatedly seeking bail without undergoing custody. The court emphasized the seriousness of the offences and the necessity of custodial interrogation.
Issues: The main issue was the repeated bail applications by the applicants and their attempt to avoid custody despite the serious nature of the offences.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following due process of law, including custodial interrogation, and rejected the bail application due to the abuse of the legal process by the applicants.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the applicants were directed to appear before the J.M.F.C. to follow due process of law. They were given the liberty to prefer a bail application before the J.M.F.C. in accordance with the court's observations.
JUDGMENT
1. The applicants are seeking bail in C.R.No.0557/2020 registered with Shikrapur Police Station, Tal. Shirur, Dist. Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'I.P.C.')
2. The First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.') was lodged on 14th September 2020 by Hiralal Manikrao Kadam alleging that his daughter Sheetal was married to Deepak son of Dnyanoba Dhemdhere on 4th July 2010 and a child who is presently aged 8 years is born out of the wedlock. His son-in-law Deepak died on 11th April 2020. He was engaged in brick kiln business in partnership with Rajendra Shirke, husband of Bharati (sister-in-law of the deceased). Deceased Sheetal used to tell him and his son that Rajendra had borrowed money from Deepak and an amount of Rs.80 Lakhs is due from him. Mother-in-law Kausalya, sister-in-law Bharati were abusing her and physically assaulting her and Rajendra used to instigate them. Her father-in-law had kept her jewellery weighing about 35 to 40 tolas in a bank locker. For withdrawal of the amount and for sale of ornaments and for transferring the property situated at Talegaon in the name of the accused Nos.2 and 4. The accused had constantly pressurized her. Sister-in-laws of the deceased and sister of mother in-law used to visit her home. They used to make the deceased realize that they are entitled for share in the property. The deceased used to inform the complainant that her father-in-law was a good person, cultured and that he would take care of her. There was an incident dated 7th September 2020, when some religious ceremony relating to death of Deepak was arranged in their house. Complainant and his wife had visited to matrimonial house of his daughter. None of the family members including her in-laws, sisterin-laws or sister of mother-in-law had any conversation with him.
After the function was over, they returned home. At 9.40 p.m. in the night, the deceased Sheetal called on mobile phone of her brother and expressed regret about what had happened. She stated that the applicants had indulged into a verbal altercation with her. The complainant somehow consoled his daughter and assured that if the harassment continues, he would bring her to the parental house. On the next day, he was informed that, Sheetal had ended her life by jumping into well. Complainant found injuries on her body. Without recording Panchnama body was sent for Post Mortem. She was killed.
3. The applicants preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court. The said application was rejected. The applicants then preferred an application for anticipatory bail before this Court. The said application was rejected by Order dated 23rd October 2020. While rejecting the said application, this Court had observed that during the course of investigation, statement of minor child of the deceased was recorded. The child had stated that after his father had expired, his two aunts were staying in their house and they were harassing his mother. His father and accused No.2 Rajendra were into brick kiln business. He was told by his mother that an amount of Rs.70 Lakhs was due from Rajendra. Four to five days prior to the incident, his elder aunt and younger aunt had put up a ploy of false altercation and he has also stated that his two aunts, his grandmother, his grandfather, cousin grandmother and Rajendra used to compel his mother to do household work and the aunts did not co-operate. He narrated incident where his mother was very frustrated, on account of the said harassment and she had hit her head against the wall. He stated that because of the harassment, his mother was constrained to commit suicide.
4. This Court further observed that during investigation, statement of Santosh Dhamdhere, who is residing in the same village has been recorded. He is the husband of sister of deceased Sheetal. He had received a recorded message on his Whatsapp from the deceased. In the first m
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.