Mumbai, India – March 6, 2024 – Zubair Mohammad Yonus Khan, 65, and Tabarkunnisa Zubair Ahmed Khan, 55, have been denied bail by a Mumbai Sessions Court in connection with the murder of their daughter-in-law. Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar, presiding over Court Room No. 41, rejected their bail application in Criminal Bail Application No. 80 of 2024, citing allegations of cruelty, the seriousness of the offense, and the ongoing investigation.

The Khans were arrested in connection with C.R. No. 778/2023 registered at Bhandup Police Station, facing charges 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).

The Alleged Incident and Investigation:

According to the prosecution, on December 27, 2023, a dispute arose between the deceased and her brother-in-law, Barkat. During the altercation, another sister-in-law, Anjum Khan, allegedly poured kerosene on the deceased, and Barkat allegedly lit a match, causing her clothes to catch fire. The deceased sustained 94% burn injuries and died the following day.

The FIR initially named Barkat and Anjum Khan. However, statements from neighbors indicated that the deceased had been subjected to cruelty by her husband, in-laws, and their family. The prosecution also alleged that a “Panchayat” had been held six months prior to the incident, where villagers had warned the in-laws against harassing the deceased.

Defense Arguments:

The Khans’ defense argued that Zubair Khan was not at home during the incident, and Tabarkunnisa Khan was asleep in her room. They claimed there was no common intention on their part to commit the offense. They also highlighted their age, lack of criminal antecedents, and permanent residency in Mumbai.

Prosecution Objections:

The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, citing the seriousness of the offense, the ongoing investigation, and the absconding status of two other accused (Anjum Khan and Sabiya). They argued that releasing the Khans could lead to witness intimidation, tampering with evidence, and absconding. They also stated that the investigation regarding the Panchayat was still pending.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision:

Judge Kawdikar, after reviewing the case records and hearing arguments from both sides, rejected the Khans’ bail application. The court acknowledged the defense’s claims but emphasized the seriousness of the offense and the prima facie evidence of cruelty based on neighbor testimonies.

“The statement of the neighbours show that the complainant was subjected to cruelty by her husband, her in-laws and their family. Thus, complainant being subjected to cruelty by her in-laws is prima-facie established in the statement of the neighbours,” Judge Kawdikar stated in her order.

The court also highlighted the absconding status of two other accused, the severity of the deceased’s injuries, and the ongoing investigation.

“Taking into consideration prima-facie complicity of the in-laws including the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in subjecting the complainant to cruelty, 2 absconding accused i.e. Anjum Khan and Sabiya who are daughters of the accused Nos.1 and 2, seriousness of the offence, punishment of death or life imprisonment, 94% burn injuries sustained by the complainant, stage of investigation i.e. investigation is not yet complete, charge-sheet is not yet filed; it is not found fit to grant bail to the accused at this stage,” Judge Kawdikar observed.

The court also expressed concerns about the possibility of witness intimidation if the Khans were released.

Implications:

This case highlights the court’s stringent approach towards cases involving domestic violence and murder, especially when there is prima facie evidence of cruelty and ongoing investigations. The court’s decision underscores the importance of considering the seriousness of the offense and the potential for witness intimidation when deciding on bail applications. It also shows that even if the accused claims they were not present during the final act of violence, that they can still be held accountable for prior actions of cruelty.