IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Bail Application No. __ Of 2014
[APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 438 OF THE
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973]
IN THE MATTER OF:
SIDDHARTH RAJENDRA RUNWAL …..APPLICANT
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA …..RESPONDENT
ON SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4
BOOKS: 4
CASES: 4
WEBSITES: 8
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 9
STATEMENT OF FACTS 10
STATEMENT OF ISSUES 12
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 13
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 14
PRAYER 42
LIST OF ABBREVATIONS
· ¶ – Paragraph
· AIR – All India Reporter
· ed. – Edition
· p. – Page
· pp. – Pages
· No. - Number
· SC – Supreme Court
· SCC – Supreme Court Cases
· SCR – Supreme Court Reporter
· Supp. – Supplement
· Vol. – Volume
· UDHR - Universal Declaration of Human Rights
· ICCPR - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
· ICESCR - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
· PS – Police Station
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Books Referred
Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure Act, 1973 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Indian Penal Code, 1860 by Ratanlal & Dhirajlal
The Indian Penal Code; With Commentary by W. R. Hamilton
Commentary on the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 by Ratanlal and Dhirajlal
Commentary on the Constitution of India – Volumes I and II by Durga Das Basu
Commentary on Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 & Rules: With Allied Laws – V. R. Choudhari
Cases Referred
Oswal Danji v. State,(1960) 1 Guj LR 145: AIR 1960 Guj 16 (18): 1961 (1) CrLJ 251 (DB).
Bherusingh v. State, 1956 Madh BLJ 905: 1956 Madh BLJ (Cri) 209: AIR 1956 Madh Bha 269 (270): 1956 Cr.L.J. 1408 (DB).
Fac Zulla, AIR 1921 Cal 241: 61 Ind Cas522:25 CWN 24: 22 CrLJ 394 (DB).
Bijay Singh v. State of M.B., 1956 CrLJ 897: AIR 1956 MB 170.
Jaikrishnan Desai, (1960) 2 SCR 319:62 Bom LR 889: 1960 SC 889.
Chandrakant v. Murgyappa Umrani v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1999 SC 1557: 1998 SSC (Cri) 698.
Parichhat v. State of M.P., AIR 1972 SC 535: 1971 SCD 1158: (1977) 4 SSC 694: 1972 CrLJ 322.
Devilal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1971 SC 1444:1971 CrLJ 1132.
Jarnail Singh V. State of Punjab, 1982 CrLJ 386 (SC): (1982) 3 SCC 672: AIR 2001 SC 1344.
Sharif Ahmad Alias Achhan, (1956) 2 All 188
Ibra Akanda v. Emperor AIR 1994 Cal 339: 48 CWN 366:45 CrLJ 771.
Bhajan Das v. Emperor AIR 1924 Lah 218:24 CrLJ 421:72 IC 533.
State v. Babur Ali, AIR 1952 Ass 110:1952 CrLJ 997.
Karim Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1971 CrLJ 1654 (Raj).
Yusuf Sardar v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Bom Cr 125 (132).
Govind Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 1978 Cr LJ (Raj) 729 (731).
Mittar Sen v. State of U.P., AIR 1976 SC 1156
Jinappa Kallappa v. State of Maharashtra, 1979 Cr LR (Mah) 481.
Hakam Khan v. Emperor, 169 IC 453 : 38 CrLJ 797 (1)
Ashok Somalal Thakkar v. State, 2007 CrLJ 3579 (Guj)
C.N. Narayan AIR 1953 SC 478
Daityari, Tripatti v. Subodh Chandra Choudhury, (1942) 2 Cal 507
Sheo Narayayan Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, AIR 1953 PAT 225
Thakarsi Damjee v. Crown AIR 1952 NAG 253
State of Gujarat v. Jaswant Lal, AIR 1968 SC 700
Hazi Badal v. Abid Hussain, 1984 All Cr R 51
Vinod Kumal Goyal v. Union Territory, 1991 CrLJ 2333 (Punj)
Hardeep Singh v. State, 1996 Cr LJ 2733 (P&H).
Ganjanan Singh Fulsingh Rajput v. State, 1996 CrLJ 2921 (Bom)
Rajbabu v. State, 2008 CrLJ 4301 (SC)
Gurnam Singh v. State, 1998 Cr LJ 3694 (P&H)
Sarala Prabhakar v. State of Maharashtra, 1990 Cr LJ 407
Jawahar Maghi Sindhi Bhansale v. State, 2006 Cr LJ 1717 (Guj)
Ramesh Chand v. State of U.P., 1992 CrLJ 1444 (All)
Shunkara Suri Babu v. State, 1996 CrLJ 1480 (AP)
Bansiya v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 Cr LJ 1393 ( Raj)
State of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh. 1996 Cr LJ 1875 (SC)
Pukh Raj, (1953) 3 Raj 983
Abraham, AIR 1960 Ker 236
Mohammed Sabad Ali v. Thuleswar Borah, (1954) 6 Ass 274
Allipuram Subbaih v. Brojja Venkata Subbamma, AIR 1942 Mad 672
Jogayya, (1887) 10 Mad 353,354; Vaz v. Dias, (1929) 32 Bom LR 103.
Abraham v. State of Kerala, AIR 1960 Ker 236:1960 CrLJ 910 (Kant)
Baby Kumar Janardana v. State, 2003 CrLJ 1425 (Kant).
Gourishankar v. Bachha Singh, AIR 1939 Pat27: 177 IC 896 (2): 39 CrLJ 980.
Jodh Singh v. State of U.P., 1991 CrLJ 3226 (All).
Mrutunjaya Pattanaik v. Dhaneswar Dalabehora, (1990) 1 Crimes 105 (Ori).
Karumanchi Veerangiah v. Katta Mark, 1976 CrLJ 1690: 1976 Andh L T 295: (1976) 1 Andhra Pradesh LJ (HC) 344.
Hukumchand v. Chandmal, AIR 1950 MB 25:51 CrLJ 764.
Bina v. V. Vanspall, 160 IC 420 (1) : 37 CrLJ 296.
Venkataranam, AIR 1948 Mad 9: 48 CrLJ 970:60 Mad LW 271: (1947) 1 Mad LJ 359.
K.P.Sinha v. Aftabuddin, AIR 1955 Pat 454:1955 CrLJ 1382.
Shamlal Bania v. King, 1952 CrLJ 721.
Guranditta v. Emperor, AIR 1930 Lah 344 (2): 127 IC 860 :32 CrLJ 62.
Abdul Aziz v. Md. Arab Saheb, AIR 1935 Cal 736 :61 Cal LJ 205 :37 CrLJ 133.
Mahammad Sabed Ali v. Thuleswar, AIR 1995 Ass 211: 1955 CrLJ 1318.
Nicol v. DPP, The Times, Nov. 22, 1995 DC.
Inacio Manuel Miranda v. State of Goa, 1999 Cr LJ 422 (Bom)
Amitabh Adhar v. NCT of Delhi, 2000 Cr LJ 4772 (Del)
Hajee Abdul Rehman v. Gulam Nabi, (1964) 1 Cr LJ 40 ( j&k)
B.T. Sharma v. State, AIR 1967 Mani 30
Jangiah v. State, 2007 CrLJ 4598 (AP)
Phipson on Evidence, 2 (15th Edn., 2000)
Uday singh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 NOC 1640 (Bom)
Chhotka v. state of W.B., AIR 1958 Cal 482
Emperor v. Shiv Kali Goswami (1944) All 758 (FB)
Taylor, 12th Edn., s.364, p.252
Drigpal Singh v. Wife of Laldhari Ojha, AIR 1985 pat 110
Niranjan Singh and Anr. v. Prabhakar Rajram Kharote and Ors. AIR 1980 SC 785
State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chaintaman Dighe AIR 1990 SC 625
State v. Surendranath Mohanty 1990 (3) OCR 462).
Natturasu v. State, 1998 CrLJ 1762 (Mad)
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Bimal Krishna Kundu, AIR 1997 SC 3589
Suresh Vasudeva v. state, 1978 Cr LJ 677(Del)
Bharat Chaudhary v. State of Bihar, (2003) 8 SCC 77 : 2003 SCC (Cri)
Adri Dharan Das v. State of West Bengal, 2005 CrLJ 1706 (SC): (2005) 2 SCC 303.
Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, 2002 (1) Crimes 124 (P&H).
Sajjan Kumar v. State, 1991 CrLJ 645, 633 (Del)
PG Gupta v. State, (2002) 101 DLT 193.
RL Jalappav. Delhi Police establishment, 1989 (3) Crimes 113, 120 (Kant).
Gaffarsah v. State of Karnataka, 1991 CrLJ 2136, 2138 (Kant).
Kamaljit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2006 CrLJ 4617 (4618):2005 SCC (Cri) 1668.
Kamireddy Mangamma Reddy v. State of A.P., 2008 CrLJ 1083 (1084) (AP).
Website Referred
www.manupatra.com
www.indiankanoon.com
www.westlaw.com
www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
The applicant has approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as under:
438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.
(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non- bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Session for a direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
(2) When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction under sub- section (1), it may include such conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub- section (3) of section 437, as if the bail were granted under that section.
(3) If such person is thereafter arrested without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station on such accusation, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, be shall be released on bail; and if a Magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that a warrant should issue in the first instance against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the Court under sub-section (1).
STATEMENT OF FACTS
· Mrs. Revati Siddharth Runwal (hereafter referred to as the Complainant), aged – 24 yrs, married to Mr. Siddhart Rajendra Runwal on 23rd May 2011 as per Hindu Rites and Rituals, has proceeded with a legal complaint against her husband and her In-laws.
· In pursuance of the same, an FIR was lodged by the Complainant (No. 94/13) at Deccan Police Station (PS) against her husband (hereafter referred to as Accused No. 1), her Father-in-law, namely Rajendra Runwal (hereafter referred to as Accused No.2), her Mother-in-law, namely Sunanda Rajendra Runwal (hereafter referred to as Accused No.3), and one Mrs. Suman Lahoti, the Aunt-in-law (hereafter referred to as Accused No. 4).
· The Complainant alleged to be repeatedly harassed mentally and physically by Accused No. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and the said harassment has been taking place since the day of the Complainant’s wedding ceremony as the food provided in the ceremony was deemed insufficient for Accused No.2 & 4 and their guests.
· It is alleged that the Complainant’s father besides having incurred an expenditure of Rs.12,00,000/- (Twelve Lakhs) and providing an Alto Car, a Bajaj Pleasure Scooter along with 10 tolas of gold as ‘ STRIDHAN’ on the abovementioned wedding ceremony was compelled and tortured to bring in more money.
· The complainant further alleged that since the parents of the complainant were unable to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (One lakh) , she had been coerced to bring in the same amount failing which she has been physically and mentally harassed by all the four accused.
· It is further alleged that the Accused No.3 took away all the gold ornaments presented to the Complainant at the time of the Wedding.
· It is alleged that Accused no.2 and 4 in collusion, to malign the character of the complainant and her family, picked petty fights with her, sent her back to her maternal house and categorically warned the father to keep a check at the misdemeanour, ill conduct and misbehaviour of their daughter.
· The complainant further fabricated the main accused and alleged that Accused No.1 has been physically abusing her as he found out about her alleged affair in April 2012 with one Mr. Hiten, brutally beat her up and assassinated her character as he was of the opinion that complainant maintained physical relations with other men, where after he dropped the complainant back to her maternal house.
· The Complainant further alleged that after amicable settlement between her father and her in-laws, she was taken back to her matrimonial house on the condition that she would give in writing that she would not commit suicide. The Complainant alleged that her after her refusal of the same, she was sent back to her maternal house and was told to stay away from Accused No. 1.
· It is further averred by the Complainant that in May 2012, the Accused, fed up with her constant threats to commit suicide, filed a non-cognizable case against the Complainant with the Deccan PS and after settling the dispute in the PS, the complainant was brought back to her matrimonial house.
· It is further alleged that due to constant disputes and petty arguments between the Complainant and her In-laws, she was asked to shift out where after the complainant and the main Accused rented a flat in Vadagaon Dhayari.
· It is reiterated by the Complainant that she would be beaten up on several occasions as he deemed the complainant unchaste who indulged with many other men, also asserts that she had been abused by Accused no.1 who also threatened to kill her on 3rd Dec 2012 as she insisted on going to her maternal house to attend her Niece’s Birthday.
· The complainant stated that after unrequited recurrent quarrels between the couple, the Accused decided to break all ties with the Complainant after which she was forcefully driven back to her maternal house and thrown off at Law College Road in 20th December 2012 at 10.00 a.m.
· The complainant submitted that about 4.00.p.m. on the very same day, she received a call from her Brother-in-Law, one Mr. Ojas Runwal informing her that Accused No.1 has left their house at Vadgaon, Dhayari leaving behind a letter explaining the same.