Mumbai, January 24, 2022: In a significant development, the Sessions Court for Greater Mumbai has granted bail to Mrs. Mangal Yezdiar Behram, also known as Mrs. Mangal Gaikwad, in connection with a case involving allegations of criminal conspiracy, wrongful death, and fraudulent property claims. The order was passed by Additional Sessions Judge B.V. Wagh in Criminal Bail Application No. 154 of 2022.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint lodged by Natasha Sethna, the daughter of the deceased, against the accused, Mrs. Behram. According to the FIR (Crime No. 561/2021) registered at Matunga Police Station, the informant alleged that Mrs. Behram, who was initially employed as a caretaker for her father, later manipulated her way into his life and unlawfully gained control over his property.

The complaint states that the informant’s father had been living alone since 2016 following the demise of his wife. Over time, Mrs. Behram allegedly restricted his communication with family members and exerted undue influence over him. Matters escalated when, on October 8, 2020, the informant received news of her father’s deteriorating health. However, by the time she reached the cremation ground, he had already been declared dead. She reportedly noticed contusions and bruises on his head, raising suspicions regarding the cause of death.

The complaint further alleges that Mrs. Behram deliberately misrepresented the cause of death as natural, obtaining a false death certificate and preventing an autopsy from being conducted. It later came to light that she had also managed to establish herself as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, allegedly for financial gain.

Arguments Presented in Court

Defense’s Plea

Advocate Paresh Thakar, appearing on behalf of the accused, argued that the allegations were baseless and fabricated. He maintained that the deceased had passed away naturally and was brought dead to the hospital, which was why no post-mortem was conducted. He further contended that the accused and the deceased had entered into a lawful marriage, making her the legal heir to his estate.

Additionally, the defense asserted that the informant’s FIR was motivated by a property dispute, especially since Mrs. Behram had already initiated a civil suit for declaration and injunction against her. It was also pointed out that there was a delay in filing the FIR and that the accused had been in judicial custody since January 10, 2022, without any further evidence emerging against her.

Prosecution’s Stand

Opposing the bail application, Public Prosecutor Ms. Jyotsana Gawali argued that the accused had deliberately misled authorities regarding the true cause of death. The prosecution maintained that by obtaining a falsified death certificate and concealing critical details, Mrs. Behram had obstructed justice. They further expressed concerns that, if released on bail, she might tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.

Court’s Observations and Decision

After reviewing the case files and hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Wagh observed that while serious allegations had been made, the investigation had progressed significantly. The court noted that Mrs. Behram was residing with the deceased as his legally registered wife and had already initiated legal proceedings regarding the property dispute.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to provide compelling reasons for the continued detention of the accused, and there were no prior criminal records against her. However, the court acknowledged the prosecution’s concern about possible witness tampering and addressed this by imposing stringent bail conditions.

Bail Conditions

Granting bail, the court laid down the following conditions:

1. Mrs. Mangal Yezdiar Behram shall be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 along with a surety of the same amount.
2. She must report to Matunga Police Station every Sunday between 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. until the charge sheet is filed.
3. She is required to provide her residential address and contact details to the investigating officer.
4. She must not, directly or indirectly, threaten or influence any witnesses.
5. She is prohibited from leaving India without prior permission from the court.

Conclusion

The case has garnered public attention due to the complex interplay of personal relationships, alleged criminal intent, and property inheritance. While the accused has secured bail, the legal battle over the allegations, as well as the property dispute, is far from over. The next course of action will depend on the findings of the police investigation and the proceedings in both the criminal and civil courts.

Legal experts note that the case underscores the importance of due process in matters involving property disputes and allegations of foul play, particularly when significant financial stakes are involved. The matter will now proceed toward trial, where the evidence and testimonies will be critically examined to determine the veracity of the claims made by both parties.