Mumbai, May 6, 2024 – Zubair Ahmed Mohammad Younus Khan, accused in a dowry death case, has been granted bail by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar. The court cited the lack of specific allegations against the accused in the FIR and dying declaration, the filing of the charge sheet, and the general nature of the allegations against all in-laws as reasons for granting bail.

Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 778/2023 registered at Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai. He was charged under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 498-A (cruelty towards wife) read with 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Prosecution’s Case:

The prosecution alleged that on December 27, 2023, a dispute arose between the complainant’s brother-in-law, Barkat, and the complainant. During the altercation, the complainant’s sister-in-law, Anjum Khan, allegedly poured kerosene on her, and Barkat lit a matchstick, causing her clothes to catch fire. The complainant later died from her injuries.

Defense Arguments:

Advocate Devendra Patil, representing Khan, argued that:

• Khan, the father-in-law of the deceased, was falsely implicated.
• His name was not mentioned in the FIR or the dying declaration.
• There was no evidence of common intention on his part.
• The investigation was complete, and the charge sheet was filed.
• Continued incarceration would serve no purpose.
• He had no criminal antecedents and was a permanent resident of Mumbai.
• The charge sheet being filed was a change of circumstance, allowing a second bail application.
• The allegations were general, and the case was similar to the case of Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonal and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors, AIR Online 2022 SC 95, where general and omnibus allegations against relatives were deemed insufficient for trial.

Prosecution’s Stance:

APP Meera Choudhari-Bhosale and Advocate Milind Dhandge, representing the intervener, opposed the bail application, arguing that:

• The offense was serious.
• Two accused were absconding.
• Khan was not a permanent resident of Mumbai and might abscond.
• He might tamper with evidence and threaten witnesses.
• They argued that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and motive, referring to the case of Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1993) 2 Supreme Court Cases 684, and that conspiracy was also a factor, referring to the case of Bhagwan Sawant Vs. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 682.

Court’s Observations and Decision:

Judge Kawdikar noted the following key points:

• The FIR did not mention Khan’s name.
• The spot panchnama and medical report corroborated the incident.
• The statement of the complainant implicated Anjum Khan and Barkat.
• The allegations against Khan were general in nature.
• The charge sheet was filed, changing the circumstances.
• The case mirrored the Kahkashan Kausar case, where general allegations were deemed insufficient.
• The cases cited by the intervener were not applicable due to differing facts.
• The neighbors’ statements indicated cruelty towards the deceased by her in-laws.
• No specific role was attributed to Khan in the murder allegations.
• Witnesses were mostly relatives, making them unlikely to turn hostile.
• Continued incarceration was deemed unnecessary.

“In the statement of the witnesses, no specific role is attributed to the accused in respect of the allegation of murder. The allegations are general in nature against all the in-laws about harassment for dowry, abusing, assaulting. At this stage, investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed. Most of the witnesses are the relatives of the deceased. Thus, their turning hostile is not probable. The accused is in custody since long. Continued incarceration of the accused is not warranted or required,” Judge Kawdikar stated in her order.

Conditions of Bail:

Khan was granted bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a Personal Bond (PB) of Rs. 50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence and witnesses.
• He must cooperate with the investigation by attending Bhandup Police Station as and when called.
• He must not contact the complainant and witnesses.
• He must not commit any offense.
• He must not leave India without court permission.
• He must furnish his address and contact details to the police station.
• He must not change his address without informing the police and court.
• Violation of any condition may lead to cancellation of bail.

Implications:

This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on specific allegations and the completion of the investigation in granting bail. The court’s reliance on the Kahkashan Kausar precedent underscores its reluctance to allow general allegations to justify continued detention. The court also balanced the rights of the accused with the need to ensure a fair trial through the imposition of strict conditions.