Latest news with #AurangabadBench
India Today
3 days ago
- India Today
Remarks on wife's cooking, clothing not cruelty: Court cancels case against man
The Bombay High Court on Friday cancelled a criminal case and related proceedings against a man and his family over a complaint filed by his estranged wife, observing that remarks about a wife's attire or cooking skills do not constitute grave cruelty or harassment."Making annoying statements that the wife was not wearing proper clothes and was not able to cook food properly cannot be said to be acts of grave cruelty or harassment," the Aurangabad Bench of the High Court, constituting Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh said, cancelling the court noted, "When the relationship gets strained, it appears that exaggerations are made. When everything was disclosed prior to the marriage and allegations are omnibus or of not so grave for befitting in the concept of cruelty contemplated under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), it would be an abuse of process of law if the husband and his family are asked to face the trial." Section 498A of the IPC (Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita) deals with cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives. It is a cognisable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable offence, meaning the police can arrest the accused without a warrant, bail is not a right, and the case cannot be settled out of case stemmed from a complaint filed by the woman who married the man in March 2022. It was her second marriage, following a mutual consent divorce in 2013. The wife alleged that a month and a half into the marriage, she was no longer treated properly. She also claimed that her husband's family had hidden his mental and physical ailments from the court scrutinised the evidence and found contradictions in the wife's claims. It noted that chats exchanged between the couple before their marriage, which were part of the charge sheet, revealed that the husband had explicitly mentioned the tablets he was taking. The court concluded that the wife had knowledge of his illness and that his medical treatment was disclosed to her before the wife had also alleged a demand for Rs 15 lakh to purchase a flat around Diwali. The court, however, questioned the plausibility of this claim, pointing out that the husband already owned a High Court found the allegations against the family members to be "omnibus" and lacking specific details. It noted that there was no evidence in the charge sheet other than the wife's statement and that the investigating officer had not even questioned the couple's neighbours.- EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Maharashtra
The Hindu
29-07-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court grants bail to three PFI accused, cites lack of prima facie evidence of terrorism
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has granted bail to three accused persons associated with the Popular Front of India (PFI), observing that mere participation in meetings, speeches or karate training sessions cannot, prima facie, be construed as committing a terrorist act under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A Division Bench comprising Justices Nitin B. Suryawanshi and Sandipkumar C. More passed the order while hearing criminal appeals filed by Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel, Abdul Hadi, and Shaikh Irfan Shaikh Salim alias Irfan Milli, who had been denied bail by the trial court in a case registered under the UAPA, the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Arms Act, and the Maharashtra Police Act. Also read: Devendra Fadnavis calls PFI a 'silent killer', says will work towards shutting down outfit in Maharashtra 'When the FIR was registered and appellants were arrested, PFI was not declared a terrorist organisation within the meaning of Section 2(m) of UAPA. Merely because appellants participated in the meetings, seminars or physical training of karate etc., prima facie, it cannot be said that they have indulged in any terrorist act,' the Bench observed. In its detailed order, the court noted that mere participation in seminars or camps would not, prima facie, amount to a terrorist act. 'Though, weapons are recovered from appellant, it is not the case of prosecution that those were used for any terrorist activity and/or for toppling the Government,' the order stated. Background of the Case On September 21, 2022, Assistant Police Inspector Rahul Rode of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), Aurangabad, lodged an FIR based on secret information alleging that a karate training camp for Muslim youth was held on November 23, 2021, near Jama Masjid in Chikalthana, under the banner 'Healthy People Healthy Nation'. It was alleged that PFI Secretary Mohsin Nadvi delivered a speech stating that Muslims in India were facing mob lynching and attacks by Hindu organisations, and urged physical preparedness in view of such challenges. A similar gathering was reportedly held on November 27, 2021, at Samosa Ground, Katkat Gate, where PFI's Aurangabad district president Irfan Milli and General Secretary Saber addressed the attendees. They allegedly accused the Central Government of conspiring against Muslims and called for armed resistance, urging the youth to join the PFI in large numbers. According to intelligence inputs received on July 3 and 4, 2022, a secret arms and physical training camp was held by the PFI at a hall near Masjid-a-Mansab Mir in Naregaon. The camp, allegedly attended by district president Imran Shaha and select trainees, was said to involve preparations to fight the Indian Government in defence of their religion. It was further alleged that PFI committee members Sayyad Faisal Sayyad Khaleel (Aurangabad), Abdul Hadi (Jalna), and Parvez Khan (Aurangabad) delivered inflammatory speeches criticising the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), the Hijab ban, and the ban on Triple Talaq, characterising them as anti-Muslim. The speeches allegedly incited unrest and called for armed jihad. On August 14, 2022, a gathering of Ulema was reportedly held under the 'Save The Republic' campaign, attended by Maulana Irfan Milli and Maulana Nasir Nadvi. At the event, the speakers allegedly criticised the Central Government, claiming that Muslims were being harassed through the NRC and that 20 lakh Muslims were being targeted for elimination. It was further alleged that they spoke about establishing a Sharia-based government and called on Muslim youth to stockpile weapons, even suggesting foreign assistance if necessary. Following these developments, an FIR was registered at the ATS Kalachowki Police Station in Mumbai, invoking Sections 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Sections 121A, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The petitioners were arrested on September 22, 2022. During the investigation, authorities allegedly recovered material linking them to ISIS, including a document titled 'India 2047: Towards Rule of Islam in India (Internal Document - Not for Circulation)' from Sayyad Faisal, along with an Urdu book titled 'Babri Masjid Kahi Hum Bhul Na Jaye' (Lest we forget the Babri mosque). In February 2023, a chargesheet was filed under Sections 121A, 122, 153A, 120B, 109, 116, and 201 of the IPC; Section 13(1)(b) of the UAPA; Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act; and Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act. The Arguments Appearing for the petitioners, Advocate N.R. Shaikh submitted that the FIR was lodged on September 21, 2022, and arrests made on the following day - prior to PFI being declared an unlawful organisation on September 27, 2022. Therefore, he argued, no offence under the UAPA could be invoked at the time. He contended that no incriminating material or overt act of terrorism was attributed to the appellants, and that only literature had been recovered from their electronic devices. Teaching karate, he argued, does not constitute terrorism under the UAPA. While ₹8 lakh was found in one account, it was not linked to any terror-related activity, he added. He also pointed out that the appellants had spent more than two years in custody and that only five out of 145 witnesses had been examined, indicating slim chances of an early conclusion of trial. Advocate Javed R. Shaikh, appearing for Shaikh Irfan, added that although a seven-inch knife, a Rampuri knife, a 'fighter', and a 1.5-foot sword were recovered from his client, there was no evidence to suggest these were used in any attempt to overthrow the government. At most, he argued, the matter would fall under the Arms Act, which prescribes a maximum sentence of two years - less than the duration already spent by the accused in custody. Opposing the appeals, Additional Public Prosecutor Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar submitted that the accused were involved in unlawful activities that threatened national security. Describing PFI as a radical organisation engaged in seditious acts and secret meetings, the Additional Public Prosecutor also cited the 'Mission 2047' document recovered from Sayyad Faisal as indicative of a larger conspiracy. Court Observations The Bench refrained from commenting on the merits of the allegations, given that the trial was still ongoing. However, it observed, 'On the ground of parity also the appellants are entitled for bail. Prima facie, we do not find reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the accused are true. Therefore, mandate contained in proviso to Section 43(D)(5) would not be applicable to the case of the accused. The prosecution could not point out criminal antecedents of appellants. Section 13(1)(b) prescribes maximum punishment of seven years, out of which appellants have already undergone two years and eight months imprisonment.' Noting that all three accused had spent over two years and eight months in custody while only five of 145 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the court emphasised the importance of a speedy trial as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Bench directed the Special Court to release the appellants on bail under appropriate and stringent conditions, including surrendering their passports and full cooperation with the ongoing trial.
India Today
07-07-2025
- Politics
- India Today
Court orders pension for freedom fighter's widow, criticises state's rejection
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Monday directed the Maharashtra government to sanction a backdated pension to an 80-year-old widow of a freedom fighter, pulling up the state for rejecting her claim on "uncalled for" that the state's rejection did not hold up to legal scrutiny, the court ordered the pension to be sanctioned retrospectively from March 24, 2004. 'The impugned order does not stand the scrutiny of the legal position and the requirements of the GR,' the bench division bench of Justices RG Avachat and Neeraj P Dhote passed the order in the second round of litigation filed by Kamalabai, widow of Bapurao Bhagwantrao Deshpande. Deshpande had applied for a pension under the Swatantrya Sainik Sanman Pension Scheme in 2004, claiming benefits under the 'Underground Freedom Fighter' category for his role in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement of 1947-48. Despite recommendations from the District Honour Committee, the state rejected his claim in Deshpande challenged the rejection, the High Court remanded the matter in 2020, directing the state to reconsider his claim "sympathetically and not perfunctorily or hyper technically.' However, the Maharashtra government upheld its earlier decision, maintaining that Deshpande failed to submit documents proving his participation in the court noted that the state had ignored available material 'on the grounds uncalled for.' It pointed out that the Government Resolution (GR) governing the pension scheme only required supporting documents 'if available.'The judges found that the affidavits of other pensioned freedom fighters and testimonies of villagers aged between 85 and 95 years were credible and sufficient to establish Deshpande's participation in the held that the state's insistence on specific documents failed the 'test of probability-based assessment,' which should guide decisions in pension affidavit submitted in court detailed Deshpande's involvement in the Hyderabad Liberation Movement, saying that he had been inspired by freedom fighters' speeches and had cut and burned trees in defiance of the law. As a result, he faced police atrocities, had his house looted, and was forced to go affidavit further said that he underwent arms training, participated in armed conflicts with the police, lived in forests and hills, and provided secret information to other freedom fighters.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
04-07-2025
- The Hindu
Aurangabad Bench directs FIR in Dalit law student's custodial death case
In a significant development in the case concerning the alleged custodial death of 35-year-old Dalit law student Somnath Suryawanshi, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Wednesday (July 2, 2025) directed the Parbhani police to register a First Information Report (FIR) within a week, noting prima facie evidence of custodial torture and violation of fundamental rights. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Sanjay A. Deshmukh passed the interim order in response to a petition filed by Mr. Suryawanshi's 61-year-old mother, Vijayabai Vyankat Suryawanshi. The petitioner alleged that her son was subjected to brutal torture during his illegal detention following a protest in Parbhani on December 11, 2024, and that authorities subsequently attempted to cover up his death as a cardiac incident. Mr. Suryawanshi, a final-year law student and a member of a Scheduled Caste family from Latur, was reportedly arrested while filming a protest against the desecration of a replica of the Constitution near a statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The petition alleged that despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration, he and several others were picked up during an indiscriminate police crackdown, subjected to custodial assault, and denied timely medical attention. The petition stated, 'In the videos, it could be seen that Somnath was carrying the book of the Constitution of India and recording the incident in the protest. His arrest was illegal and then he was subjected to inhuman atrocities. He as well as other persons were produced before the Magistrate on 12.12.2024. The others were also subjected to brutality and their injuries were visible, swollen, however, they were afraid to speak to the Magistrate due to the threats those were given. The Court had granted police custody of two days. Further brutal assault was given to Somnath. His situation had worsened when he was again produced before the Magistrate on 14.12.2024. Thereafter, his custody was transferred to Magisterial custody. Around 6.49 a.m. suddenly Somnath died on 15.12.2024, while in judicial custody.' It was further submitted that police claimed Mr. Suryawanshi had complained of chest pain prior to his death. 'The police had then informed around 9.00 a.m. of 15.12.2024 that whether Somnath was her son and what his caste is. It was then informed to her that Somnath passed away due to heart attack. In the post-mortem primary reasons were assigned by the concerned Doctor as 'shock due to multiple injuries',' the petition stated. The petitioner also alleged that on reaching Parbhani, she was taken by Police Officer Ashok Ghorband to the Inspector General of Police, where she was informed that Somnath's brothers could be offered police jobs and was advised to perform the last rites in Latur instead of Parbhani. She further claimed she was offered ₹50 lakh to refrain from filing a complaint. She declined, demanding that her son's death be acknowledged as custodial murder and not classified as death by natural causes. The court noted that the post-mortem, conducted by a seven-member medical team, had recorded 24 visible injuries and concluded that the cause of death was 'shock following multiple injuries'. A judicial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) also reportedly found gross human rights violations and directly linked the death to custodial assault. 'This Court cannot remain a mute spectator when constitutional rights of a person in custody are prima facie violated,' the Bench observed, criticising the State for failing to register a cognisable offence despite substantial evidence from the post-mortem, inquest report, and the magistrate's findings. The Bench further questioned the delay by the CID in acting on the findings and expressed concern over the credibility of the internal inquiry, which bypassed the autopsy doctors and instead sought a second opinion from J.J. Hospital, Mumbai. The court has directed that an FIR be registered based on the petitioner's complaint dated December 18, 2024, and that the investigation be handed over to a Deputy Superintendent of Police. The prior order restraining CID officer D.B. Talpe from submitting a final report has been vacated following this direction. While passing only an interim order with respect to the FIR, the court has kept the remaining prayers - including demands for the suspension of officers involved and the framing of custodial death guidelines - pending for further hearing on July 30.
The Hindu
26-06-2025
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court quashes dowry harassment case, flags misuse of Section 498-A
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has set aside proceedings against a family of six in a dowry harassment case, terming the charges 'frivolous' and 'motivated'. The Court highlighted contradictions in the complainant's version and flagged serious flaws in the police investigation, asserting that continued prosecution would amount to an abuse of the legal process. The case stemmed from an FIR registered by a woman who alleged cruelty and harassment for dowry after her marriage on January 28, 2024. She claimed she was driven out of her matrimonial home within two months and accused her husband and his family members of mental and physical abuse, including a demand for ₹20 lakh. However, a Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh, after reviewing the chargesheet, found significant inconsistencies in the complaint. The Court noted that the complainant had suppressed her own employment details — she was working as a senior executive at a Pune-based health insurance company — while accusing the husband and his family of harassment and financial demands. The Judges observed that the couple had spent part of their short-lived marriage on a honeymoon in Manali and that the complainant's own travel records and admission contradicted several of her allegations. 'A fact that surprises is that it is stated that within two days only the mother-in-law started demanding an amount of ₹20,00,000/- as dowry. She states that she was abused; pinching words were given, she was asked to do the work in the house and was kept starving. It is hard to believe then that she states that within those two days even the sister-in-law started saying that the informant should be killed by pressing a pillow on her face,' the Bench said, adding, 'The applicants are well-educated persons and, therefore, it is hard to believe that within two days the relationship would go so bitter.' Criticising the police investigation, the Bench noted that the investigating officer failed to verify the allegations by visiting the matrimonial homes in Kharghar and Manmad. Instead, a panchnama was carried out at the complainant's father's house in Nanded with no meaningful corroboration of her claims. 'This is a classic example of misuse of Section 498-A,' the Bench declared. 'Nowadays even the police are not taking proper precautions and making appropriate investigations in such cases. This attitude is dangerous because genuine cases would suffer due to such apathy.' The Court also noted that many of the statements recorded from the complainant's family appeared to be 'copy-paste' versions lacking substance or independent verification. Quashing the criminal proceedings, the Judges invoked their powers under Section 482 of the CrPC, reiterating that courts must intervene in cases where prosecution appears to be driven by vengeance or is manifestly groundless. 'The institution of criminal proceedings with an ulterior motive can destroy lives,' the Bench noted, emphasising the need for caution in both filing and investigating matrimonial complaints.
