Mumbai, May 6, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has granted bail to Mr. Ahsanullah Zubair Ahmed Khan, a 31-year-old service professional, who was arrested in connection with a dowry death case (C.R. No. 778/2023) registered at the Bhandup Police Station. The order, passed by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar in Court Room No. 41 on May 4, 2024, comes after a detailed hearing of Criminal Bail Application No. 830 of 2024.

Mr. Khan was booked under Sections 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder), and 498-A (cruelty towards wife by husband or relative of husband) read with Section 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, following¹ the death of his sister-in-law.

According to the FIR, the incident occurred on December 27, 2023, at around 10:00 a.m., following a petty dispute between the complainant’s brother-in-law, Barkat, and the complainant. It was alleged that Barkat abused the complainant’s sister, Najma Khatoon. Subsequently, Anjum Khan, another sister-in-law of the complainant, allegedly poured kerosene on her, and Barkat allegedly lit a matchstick, causing the complainant’s clothes to catch fire. The FIR states that the present applicant, Ahsanullah Khan, who is also a brother-in-law of the complainant, along with other people, took the injured complainant to Fortis Hospital. Initially, the case was registered under Section 307 of the IPC, but after the complainant succumbed to her injuries on December 28, 2023, Sections 302 and 498-A were added.

Advocate Mr. Devendra Patil, representing the applicant, argued that the FIR was falsely lodged against his client simply because he was a relative of the deceased’s husband. He emphasized that the applicant’s name was mentioned in the FIR as the person who assisted in taking the complainant to the hospital. Mr. Patil contended that there was no evidence to suggest a common intention on the part of his client to commit the alleged offences. He further submitted that the investigation was complete, and the charge-sheet had been filed, making the continued incarceration of the accused unnecessary. He also highlighted that the applicant had no prior criminal record, was a permanent resident of Mumbai, and was willing to abide by any conditions imposed by the court.

The bail application was opposed by Learned A.P.P. Mrs. Meera Choudhari-Bhosale for the State and Advocate Mr. Milind Dhandge for the intervener. They argued that the offence was serious, carrying a potential punishment of life imprisonment or the death penalty. They pointed out that while the charge-sheet was filed, two other accused were still absconding. They also raised concerns that the applicant was not a permanent resident of Mumbai and might abscond if granted bail. Additionally, they argued that releasing the accused could lead to the tampering of evidence and the pressurizing or threatening of witnesses.

After perusing the records, Judge Kawdikar noted that the FIR primarily implicated Barkat and Anjum Khan in the act of setting the complainant on fire. The FIR mentioned the present accused only in the context of taking the complainant to the hospital. The court also took note of a photograph produced by the applicant’s advocate, which purportedly showed that the applicant had sustained burn injuries while trying to save the complainant. The spot panchanama corroborated the incident, detailing the discovery of burnt matchsticks and a kerosene can at the scene. The medical report indicated that the complainant suffered 94% burn injuries.

The court also considered the arguments based on legal precedents. Advocate for the applicant relied on the Kahkashan Kausar Alias Sonal and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. case, where the Supreme Court held that general and omnibus allegations against relatives of the husband should not lead to their trial. Judge Kawdikar found the facts of the present case to be similar in that the allegations against the current applicant appeared general.

Conversely, the advocate for the intervener cited Kundula Bala Subrahmanyam and Another Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, emphasizing the significance of motive in circumstantial evidence cases. However, the court distinguished this case, noting that Section 304-B (dowry death) was not attracted as the deceased was married in 2012, and the prosecution’s case was not solely based on circumstantial evidence against the present applicant. Another case relied upon by the intervener, Bhagwan Sawant Vs. State of Maharashtra, concerning conspiracy and the admissibility of co-conspirator’s acts, was also deemed inapplicable as Section 120-B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC was not included in the FIR, and the applicant’s role as described in the FIR did not suggest a conspiratorial act in the commission of the main offence.

While the statements of neighbors and relatives indicated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband and in-laws, Judge Kawdikar highlighted that no specific role was attributed to the present accused in the act of murder itself. The FIR explicitly mentioned him as assisting in taking the complainant to the hospital. The court acknowledged the general allegations of harassment for dowry, abuse, and assault against all in-laws but found a lack of specific allegations against Ahsanullah Khan concerning the act of setting the deceased on fire.

Considering that the investigation was complete, the charge-sheet was filed, and most witnesses were relatives of the deceased (making their turning hostile less probable), the court concluded that the continued incarceration of the accused was not warranted.

Consequently, the court allowed the criminal bail application, ordering the release of Mr. Ahsanullah Zubair Ahmed Khan on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one or more sureties of the like amount, subject to the following conditions:

1. The accused shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and witnesses.
2. The accused shall co-operate in the investigation by attending the Bhandup Police Station as and when called by the Investigating Officer on written notice, till the conclusion of the trial.
3. The accused shall not directly or indirectly contact the complainant and witnesses by any means till the conclusion of the trial.
4. The accused shall not commit any offence.
5. The accused shall not leave India without the permission of the Court.
6. The accused shall furnish his permanent and temporary address, if any, and his contact details to the concerned police station.
7. The accused shall not change his residential address without prior intimation to the Investigation Officer and to the concerned Court.
8. If the accused disobeys any of the above conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to move the Court for cancellation of bail.

The order, signed by Additional Sessions Judge Dr. Gauri Kawdikar on May 4, 2024, was uploaded on May 6, 2024, at 11:21 A.M. This decision highlights the court’s emphasis on specific allegations and the lack of direct involvement in the primary offence when considering bail applications, even in serious cases like dowry death.