Mumbai, August 20, 2022 – Shoaib Siddiqui Shaikh, accused of dowry harassment, rape, and other offenses, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge A.B. Sharma. The court cited the matrimonial dispute between the parties, the accused’s prior filing of a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR), and the completion of material investigation as reasons for granting bail.

Shaikh was arrested in connection with Crime No. 770 of 2022 registered at Nirmal Nagar Police Station, Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 498(A) (dowry harassment), 376 (rape), 377 (unnatural offenses), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), and 506 (criminal intimidation)¹ read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code² (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The complainant alleged that she married Shaikh on June 7, 2022, and was subjected to forced sexual acts, dowry demands, and physical and mental harassment by Shaikh and his family.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate S.A. Vasid, representing Shaikh, argued that the allegations were false and that the complainant had threatened to implicate his client in a false dowry case. He pointed out that Shaikh had filed an NCR against the complainant on July 4, 2022, prior to the registration of the FIR. He also submitted evidence of Rs. 7,00,000 paid to the complainant over two years while Shaikh worked in Kuwait.

Prosecution’s Stance:

APP Kalpana Hire, representing the State, opposed the bail application, citing the seriousness of the offense and the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses and fleeing to Kuwait.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Sharma noted the following key points:

• Matrimonial Dispute: The court recognized the case as a matrimonial dispute.
• Prior NCR Filing: Shaikh had filed an NCR against the complainant before the FIR was registered.
• Financial Transactions: Evidence of financial transactions between the parties was presented.
• Completion of Investigation: The court found that the material investigation in respect of the accused was complete.
• Threats from Unknown Persons: The court noted that threats were given by unknown persons, not directly attributable to the accused.

“It reveals from the documents annexed with the application that the accused has registered NCR first against the informant. It is also seen that Rs. 50,000/- is deposited in the name of Mohd. Ashfak. The informant has not given any explanation about it, during the hearing of this application. It is nowhere seen that threats were given by the accused or on his behalf. The threats were given by some unknown person. The investigating officer has also not filed any additional Say about it. It is seen that the informant and the accused is having matrimonial dispute. He is behind the bar since his arrest. Case diary indicates that material investigation in respect of the accused is completed. Thus, I do not find that further incarceration of the accused is required,” Judge Sharma stated in her order.

Conditions of Bail:

Shaikh was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must furnish a Personal Recognizance (PR) Bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount.
• He must visit Nirmal Nagar Police Station once a month until the charge sheet is filed.
• He must not leave India without prior court permission.
• He must submit proof of his residential address, phone number, Aadhaar card, and election card.
• He must not involve in any crime.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence or witnesses.
• He must not directly or indirectly influence any witnesses.
• He must attend all court hearings.
• He must not visit the place where prosecution witnesses reside or contact them.
• Violation of any condition may result in bail cancellation.
• Provisional cash bail is allowed for three months.

Implications:

This decision highlights the court’s consideration of the context of matrimonial disputes and the importance of prior actions by the accused, such as filing an NCR. The court balanced the seriousness of the allegations with the completion of the investigation and the need to prevent unnecessary pretrial detention. The imposition of stringent conditions aims to ensure the accused’s compliance with the law and protect the complainant’s safety.