Mumbai, May 6, 2024 – Ashfaqullah Zubair Ahmed Khan, accused in a dowry death case, has been granted bail by the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar allowed Khan’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 829 of 2024), citing the lack of direct evidence implicating him in the murder and the completion of the investigation.

Khan was arrested in connection with C.R. No. 778/2023, registered at Bhandup Police Station, for offenses punishable under sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 498-A (cruelty by husband or relative of husband) 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, Barkat allegedly abused the complainant’s sister, Najma Khatoon. Subsequently, Anjum Khan, the complainant’s sister-in-law, allegedly poured kerosene on the complainant and Barkat. Barkat then allegedly lit a matchstick, causing the complainant’s clothes to catch fire. Ahsanullah Khan, another brother-in-law, along with others, took the complainant to Fortis Hospital. The initial FIR was registered under section 307 read with 34 of the IPC. Following the complainant’s death on December 28, 2023, sections 302 and 498-A were added.

Defense Arguments:

Khan’s advocate, Devendra Patil, argued that his client was falsely implicated due to his relationship with the deceased’s husband. He emphasized that Khan’s name was not mentioned in the initial FIR or the deceased’s dying declaration and that there was no evidence of a common intention to commit the offense. Patil further stated that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was filed, and Khan had no prior criminal record. He argued that Khan was a permanent resident of Mumbai and was prepared to abide by all bail conditions.

Prosecution and Intervenor’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Meera Choudhari-Bhosale, and the intervenor, represented by Advocate Milind Dhandge, opposed the bail. They argued that the offense was serious, punishable with life imprisonment or death. They highlighted that two other accused were absconding and that Khan was not a permanent resident of Mumbai. They expressed concerns about Khan absconding, tampering with evidence, and threatening witnesses.

Court’s Decision:

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the record, noted that Khan’s name was not mentioned in the FIR. The court also observed that the spot panchanama and medical reports corroborated the incident described in the FIR, particularly regarding the involvement of Anjum Khan and Barkat.

The court considered the defense’s reliance on Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonal and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., which held that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the complainant’s husband were insufficient for trial. The court found this ratio applicable to Khan’s case, as the allegations against him were general.

The court also addressed the intervenor’s reliance on Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Bhagwan Sawant Vs. State of Maharasthra. It concluded that these cases were not applicable as they dealt with different factual scenarios, such as circumstantial evidence and criminal conspiracy, which were not directly relevant to Khan’s case.

Judge Kawdikar noted that while the statements of neighbors and relatives indicated the complainant was subjected to cruelty by her in-laws, no specific role was attributed to Khan in the murder. Given that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet was filed, and most witnesses were relatives, the court concluded that the likelihood of witness tampering was low. Therefore it was deemed that continued incarceration of the accused was not needed.

Conditions of Bail:

Judge Kawdikar granted Khan bail on the following conditions:

• He must execute a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the same amount.
• He must not tamper with prosecution evidence and witnesses.
• He must cooperate with the investigation by attending the Bhandup Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer (IO) on written notice, until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must not directly or indirectly contact the complainant and witnesses by any means until the conclusion of the trial.
• He must not commit any offense.
• He must not leave India without permission of the Court.
• He must furnish his permanent and temporary address, if any, and his contact details to the concerned police station.
• He must not change his residential address without prior intimation to the IO and the concerned Court.
• If he disobeys any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on direct evidence and specific roles in criminal cases, especially those involving multiple accused. The court’s decision to grant bail reflects its consideration of the completion of the investigation and the reduced likelihood of witness tampering in cases where most witnesses are relatives.