Kausalya Dnyanoba Dhemdhere V The State Of Maharashtra : Seeking Bail Without Undergoing Custody Is Like Making Mockery Of Justice

DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
1st April 2021

JUDGES:
Justice Prakash Naik

PARTIES:
1. Kausalya Dnyanoba Dhemdhere (Appellants)
2. Bharati Rajendra Shirke
3. Jayshree Ranjet Shinde

The State Of Maharashtra (Respondent)

SUBJECT

In the said judgement the single judge bench of Bombay High Court was dealing with a case where the applicants were charged with the offence of abetment to suicide and were trying to seek bail without going into custody. The court felt that it would be a mockery of justice if in such kind of cases the accused is granted bail.

AN OVERVIEW

1. On 14th September 2020, F.I.R. was lodgedin Shikrapur Police Station, Pune against the 3appellants by Hiralal Manikrao Kadam, the father of the deceased. All the 3 accused were booked under sections 306, 498, 439 and 34. Sheetal, the deceased daughter-in-law committed suicide by jumping in the well. It is to be noted that accused no.1 was the mother-in-law of the deceased whereas accused no. 2 & 3 were sister-in-laws of the deceased.
2. As per the First Information Report (F.I.R), the father of the deceased stated that his daughter Sheetal was married to Deepak the son of Dnyanoba Dhemdhere and accused no.1.On 11th April 2020, his son-in-law died who was engaged in the business of brick in partnership with the husband of accused no.2. (i.e.Bharati Shirke's husband Rajendra Shirke). Sheetal and Deepak had a son born out of wedlock who is presently living aged 8 years old.
3. The father stated that when his daughter was alive she used to tell him and her minor son that Rajendra Shirke had borrowed Rupees 80 lakhs from Deepak which is still due. Simultaneously, Rajendra used to instigate his wife Bharati (accused no.2) and Kausalya (accused no.1) to pressurize the deceased to transfer the property in the name of accused no.2 & 3 also for withdrawal of money and to sell her ornaments. The gold ornaments were kept in a bank locker that weighed around 35 to 40 grams.
4. Furthermore, the sister of mother-in-law and both the sisters-in-law of the deceased used to make the deceased realize that even they are entitled to a share in the property. The complainant further stated that the father-in-law of his daughter was cultured and a good man who used to take care of her as stated to him by his deceased daughter.
5. On 7th September 2020, at 9:40 p.m. the complainant received a call from the deceased who stated that she regretted what happened and mentioned that the appellants had indulged in a verbal fight with her. That night the father somehow consoled his daughter and assured her that if the harassment continue she will bring her back to her parental home. On the next day, the father was informed that his daughter committed suicide by jumping into the well.
6. He noticed several injuries on her body. The body was sent for a post mortem without recording panchnama. According to the father, his daughter was killed.

ISSUE

1. Whether the present bail application is maintainable?

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Indian Penal Code
Section 306 – Abetment of Suicide
Section 34 – Act is done by a group of persons in furtherance of a mutual intention
Section 498 – Cruelty

2. Criminal Procedure Code
Section 439 – Special Powers of High Court for Granting Bail.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT

1. The appellant applied for bail in the Sessions Court which was rejected then applied in the High Court which again got rejected. The Court observed that as per the statements recorded of the minor child it pointed out that his mother was in a depressed state of mind. Also, the harassment faced by her due to the applicants was an immediate factor that provoked her to take the extreme step. In one such incident narrated by the 8-year-old child, he asserted that 4 to 5 days before his mother committed suicide, accused no. 2 and 3 had schemed against his mother. And all his paternal family members used to force his mother to do all the household chores and his aunts never co-operated with his deceased mother. In another such episode, she became so frustrated due to the constant harassment that she slammed her head towards the wall.

2. Further, the court observed that during the inquiry, the statement of Santosh Dhamdhere was recorded. He was the brother-in-law of the deceased(Sheetal's sister's husband). According to the WhatsApp recordings sent on 23rd August 2020 to him by the deceased, she informed him that she is going to take an extreme step and expressed her misery. She also took assurance from her mother that she will take care of her son. She clearly mentioned in the recording that the persons responsible for her decision to take this extreme step is her2 sisters-in-law and her mother-in-law. Her last words were ‘they shall never be spared for dragging her to take this extreme step.’ All these words of the deceased show that she went through a lot of mental agonies.

3. Another recording of 5th September 2020, wherein she described that how her 2 sisters-in-law used to plot against her and how they used to put false fights. She was harassed on account of the earnings of her deceased husband also for claim and share in the property. She lastly stated to Santosh that now she is unable to tolerate all this anymore. Thus the bail application was rejected. The court noted that after their bail application being rejected again and again they approached the Supreme Court for the same. However, the apex court directed the applicants to approach a Lower Court within 4 weeks to seek regular bail.

4. The applicants contended that they 1st approached JMFC as per the direction of the Supreme Court and surrendered before the court and they asserted that they should be exempted from these charges as they are false and fabricated also because they are ladiesvand the investigation was complete so there is no need to be in custody. Whereas the prosecution said that they are applying for bail repeatedly without even undergoing custody for a single day.

5. The Hon'ble High court observed that this is an abuse of the process of law if a person without subjecting oneself to serious investigation keeps on applying for bail. The court even felt that the applicants were trying to mislead the court by saying that the magistrate was not ready to hear the application also there is nothing illegal in waiting for the response of the Investigating officer. Thus, even the High Court rejected and dismissed their bail application. The JMFC was directed to follow due process of law and take them in custody.

CONCLUSION

It is clear by the court's decision which points out the fact that without being in custody a person cannot apply for regular bail even though the person states that he has surrendered before the court as some serious crimes need serious investigation.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement