Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 882 (MP)

Shahwar @ Shabbir Khan v. State of M. P.

2014-07-24

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
ORDER 1. Case diary is available. After investigation charge sheet has already been filed. 2. This is first application under section 439 of CrPC filed by the applicant/accused for grant of bail in connection with Crime No.488/2014, registered at Police Station Jahangirabad, Distt.Bhopal for the offences punishable under section 306 and 498A of IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant/accused submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage of the deceased -Ashma Khan was solemnized with the applicant/accused in the year 1999 and they were blessed with three daughters. The deceased was involved in extramarital affairs with another person, owing to which the applicant/accused tried to restrain her. Consequently, a dispute arose between them and the matter was referred to ‘Mahila Paramarsh Kendra’ where a proceeding was drawn up on 28.3.2014. Learned counsel further contends that the mutual divorce was taken by both the parties on 18.5.2014 and an agreement of ‘Talaqnama’ was written by them. Neither any dying declaration of the deceased was recorded nor did the deceased leave any suicidal note about the circumstances of her death. Learned counsel by placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble apex Court in the cases of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku Ram and others, AIR 1996 SC 67 , M. Mohan v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (2011) 3 SCC 626 and 1995 Supl. SCC 731 and Mahendra Singh and another v. State of M.P., 1995 Supl (III) SCC 731, has argued that there is no prima facie evidence on record against the applicant for abetting the deceased to commit suicide, hence offence under section 306 of IPC is not made out. The injuries found on the body of the deceased during post-mortem were not in fresh in nature. Further, after investigation, charge sheet has already been filed and custody of the applicant/ accused is not required in this case. More over, there is no one except him to look after his three daughters one of whom suffers from handicap. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has submitted that more than eight injuries have been found on the body of the deceased in the postmortem report. Death of the deceased took place in the house of the applicant/accused. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for grant of bail. 4. Learned Panel Lawyer opposing the submissions made on behalf of the applicant/accused has submitted that more than eight injuries have been found on the body of the deceased in the postmortem report. Death of the deceased took place in the house of the applicant/accused. The aforesaid circumstances indicate that the deceased was brutally manhandled by the applicant/accused. Consequently, she was compelled to commit suicide. Learned Panel Lawyer further contends that before the alleged incident, earlier a report dated 23.4.2014 was also lodged by the deceased against the applicant/accused for beating her up and misbehaving with her. Further a written report dated 27.3.2014 was also made by the deceased against the applicant/accused for harassing her. In this manner the deceased was persistently harassed and illtreated by the applicant/accused and so he is not entitled to bail in this matter. 5. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposing the application has submitted that the alleged document of ‘Talaqnama’ is forged and fabricated as the parents of the deceased have stated in their statement that the ‘Talaq’ was not carried out between the deceased and the applicant. Learned counsel further pointed out that if the alleged ‘Talaq’ had been carried out between them, it would not have been possible for the deceased to stay in the house of the applicant/accused. The alleged document of agreement of ‘Talaqnama’ was given by the applicant/accused himself to the Police. No explanation has been given by the applicant/accused about the injuries which were found on the body of the deceased whereas the death was caused in the house of the applicant/accused, however, the applicant/accused is the best person to know about the injuries, being husband, of the deceased who was being continuously harassed and pressurized by the applicant for giving ‘Talaq’ so that the applicant may get second marriage. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel for the objector has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 6. Heard the arguments of both the parties. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted a document of ‘Talaqnama’ which was executed before ‘Kaaji’. At this stage, the story put forth by the applicant/accused about the ‘Talaq’ (divorce) does not appear to be convincing because the parents of the deceased have denied this fact in their statement. 7. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted a document of ‘Talaqnama’ which was executed before ‘Kaaji’. At this stage, the story put forth by the applicant/accused about the ‘Talaq’ (divorce) does not appear to be convincing because the parents of the deceased have denied this fact in their statement. Whether or not the alleged signature of the deceased was made by the deceased on the alleged ‘Talaqnama’ has to be proved by the applicant/accused. The arguments of learned counsel for the objector appears to be justified that if the divorce had taken place between the parties, why the deceased was residing along with the applicant/accused in his home. Signature of the deceased is to be also identified by the parents of the deceased. Their statements are to be recorded before the trial Court. More than eight injuries have been found on the body of the deceased in the post-mortem report, though colour of the injuries has been mentioned ‘blackish, purple’. Nonetheless, at this stage, the said injuries cannot be ignored. Indisputedly, the deceased died in the house of the applicant/accused. No explanation about the injuries of the deceased has been given by the applicant/accused. More over, before the alleged incident, an FIR dated 23.4.2014 was also lodged by the deceased against the applicant/accused. Further a written report dated 27.3.2014 was also submitted by the deceased to the police authorities against the applicant/accused for harassing her. The cited judgments do not help the accused at the present stage of the case. 8. Considering the aforesaid document and the evidence on record, this Court does not deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant/accused till the statements of the parents of the deceased are recorded before the trial Court. 9. Therefore, the bail application filed by the applicant/accused is hereby dismissed.