Latest news with #AurangabadBench
The Hindu
2 days ago
- 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.
News18
23-06-2025
- News18
Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The senior citizen couple had moved the high court challenging an order in favour of the daughter-in-law that quashed the eviction issued by the senior citizens tribunal. The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has recently held that a son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their ageing parents to let them reside in their home against their wishes, while reaffirming the rights of a senior citizen couple. A bench presided over by Justice Prafulla S Khubalkar held that the son and daughter-in-law had no legal right to reside in the house, especially when relations had become hostile. The judge said, 'In any case, the son and daughter-in-law cannot compel their parents to allow them to reside in their property against their desire. As such, there is no legal basis for the claim of respondent No.4 to reside in the petitioners' house, and on the contrary, the petitioners are entitled to invoke provisions of the Act to seek eviction of respondent Nos.3 and 4." The verdict came in response to a plea filed by the senior citizen petitioners, challenging the appellate tribunal's order that had ruled in favour of the daughter-in-law and set aside an earlier direction asking the son and daughter-in-law to vacate the house. Before the High Court, it was the petitioners' case that they had allowed their son and daughter-in-law, who had a love marriage, to reside in their home, considering their immediate needs after marriage. However, the relations soon turned sour, as the petitioners alleged that the daughter-in-law began filing frivolous cases against them. They then approached the senior citizens' tribunal seeking eviction of both the son and the daughter-in-law from their property. The tribunal had allowed their plea. The daughter-in-law had then contested the order passed by the tribunal before the appellate tribunal. Notably, she had filed divorce proceedings against her husband, along with proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act and Section 498-A against her husband and in-laws. Before the Appellate Tribunal, she contended that she had a right to reside in the property in question, mainly because the matrimonial proceedings filed by her were still pending. While allowing her plea, the appellate tribunal denied the relief sought under the Senior Citizens Act by the petitioners in the present case. It asked the petitioners to initiate appropriate civil proceedings, noting that the dispute was civil in nature. The senior citizen petitioners before the high court, represented by Advocate NS Jain, had argued that the appellate tribunal had adopted a perverse approach, defeating the object and purpose of the Senior Citizens Act, which ensures the protection of the rights of senior citizens. It was argued that the daughter-in-law had filed frivolous and malicious cases against them. On the other hand, Advocate ML Sangit, the Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the tribunals, contended that the tribunal had merely allowed the daughter-in-law's appeal and asked the parents to pursue eviction through civil courts. It was argued that the tribunal had rightly refused the claim for eviction. Rejecting these claims, the high court said that directing the petitioners to initiate fresh civil proceedings for the eviction of their daughter-in-law was detrimental and defeated the purpose of the Senior Citizens Act. While considering the factual matrix of the present case, the court opined that the appellate tribunal had grossly erred in allowing the appeal and directing the parties to approach the civil court to seek eviction. In a noteworthy interpretation of the statute, which specifically refers to the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, the court said that it was a beneficial legislation aimed at protecting and upholding the welfare of senior citizens. 'It is thus evident that the appellate tribunal has adopted an unduly hyper-technical approach, thereby defeating the very object and purpose of the special statute, which is in the nature of beneficial legislation enacted to safeguard the rights and interests of senior citizens. Although vested with statutory powers under the said enactment, the appellate tribunal has displayed an indifferent attitude towards the issues raised by the senior citizens," the court added. Accordingly, the high court set aside and quashed the order passed by the appellate tribunal. It went on to uphold the order passed by the senior citizens tribunal, which had granted the elderly couple relief. Thus, the son and daughter-in-law were directed to vacate the property within 30 days. The court also imposed costs on them for failing to comply with a previous order by which it had directed them to pay Rs 20,000 per month for continued occupation. First Published: June 23, 2025, 15:44 IST News india Son, Daughter-In-Law Can't Force Elderly Parents To Share Home Against Their Will: Bombay HC
The Hindu
17-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court dismisses Dhule Lok Sabha constituency BJP candidate's plea
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed an election petition filed by former member of Parliament Subhash Ramrao Bhamre of the Bharatiya Janata Party, who challenged the election of Shobha Dinesh Bacchav from the Dhule Lok Sabha Constituency last year. The order was made available on Monday. Mr. Bhamre had secured the second highest votes. The elected candidate secured 5,83,866 votes while the petitioner secured 5,80,035 votes. He lost by a narrow margin of 3,831 votes. In the petition, Mr. Bhamre claimed that after conducting inquiries, he came to know from the residents of Malegaon and party workers associated with him that votes were polled in the name of persons who were already dead and that these votes are polled in favour of Ms. Bacchav. He claimed that multiple votes under identical names were cast across different booths, also, burkha-clad women were allowed to vote despite their names not being on the electoral rolls, and all these votes were in favour of Ms. Bacchav. Ms. Bacchav sought dismissal of the plea, arguing that the petitioner's allegations were vague and unsupported. 'The original election petition does not disclose the source of information from where the election agent of petitioner received information that votes from about six electric voting machines have not been counted.' She contended that the petition is 'not based on verifiable facts but mere assumptions' and 'there is no legally admissible evidence or definite pleading to back the charges.' A Single Bench judge, Justice Arun R. Pednekar dismissed the petition and noted, 'There is no prima facie material to indicate that votes are cast in the name of dead persons. The data was asked from the petitioner and the Election Commission i.e. register maintained under Form 17-A and 17-C of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 with CCTV footage so as to verify, whether votes are cast in the name of dead persons and multiple votes are cast in the name of same persons at different booths.' There is no affidavit by polling agents that they have noticed votes being cast in the name of dead persons or that the polling agent had raised objection to the casting of the votes in the name of dead persons, the order said. In the absence of material that can prove that voting took place in the name of dead persons, the judge said, 'Thus there is an element of speculation and inquiry by this court at the instance of the election petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record the names of dead persons, whose names continues to be on the electoral roll, so also, has placed names of voters at multiple places. However, there is no evidence that voting has taken place in the name of dead persons or that voting has taken place at multiple places by the same voter.' By merely having names of dead persons on the electoral roll, this court will not presume that votes are cast in their names, the court said. 'The polling agents in the booth are aware of the votes cast by persons and an affidavit of polling agents present in the polling station stating that votes are cast against the dead persons would at least indicate that voting has taken place against the name of dead persons.' In the election petition, the pleadings have to be precise, specific and unambiguous. If the allegations contained in election petition do not set out grounds as contemplated in Section 100 and do not conform to the requirement of Section 81 and 83 of the Act, the election petition is liable to be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, the court observed. Dismissing the petition, the court said, 'Omission of a single material fact leading to an incomplete cause of action or omission to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies for establishing a cause of action, would entail rejection of election petition under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 83 and 87 of the Representation of the People Act.'
The Hindu
06-05-2025
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court takes suo motu notice of ‘copy-pasted' witness statements by the police
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court took suo motu cognisance of the practice of copy-pasting witness statements by the Maharashtra Police and directed the State government to issue necessary guidelines to put an end to it. 'We have noticed that even in serious offences, the investigating officer recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has literally copy-pasted the statements,' the Division Bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A. Deshmukh said, passing the order. Even the paragraphs began with the same words and ended with the same words, the court noted. 'The culture of copy-pasted statements is dangerous and may, in certain cases, unnecessarily provide advantage to the accused persons. In such circumstances, the seriousness of a genuine case may vanish,' the court said. The Bench observed that two witnesses could not provide completely identical statements, with the only difference appearing to be in the relationship of the witness to a deceased person or an informant. 'We have noticed this in many cases, including cases under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. We may also wonder whether these witnesses were really called by the police for making a statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or not, but their statements appear in the chargesheet,' the order said. The court had made similar observations in another matter, the Bench said, adding that copy-pasted statements in cases of serious offences, including under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, required it to take suo motu cognisance of the issue, and consider what challenges or shortcomings the investigating officers faced when they resorted to such a practice. The observations came in the case of a family from Maharashtra's Jalgaon district that sought the quashing of criminal proceedings against its members for alleged abetment in the suicide of a 17-year-old girl. The case was initially treated as accidental death and reported under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. When the First Information Report was lodged, the concerned police officer did not take note of the age of the deceased, and thus appeared to have registered the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Later, it appeared that the birth certificate of the deceased had been fetched, and the offence under Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code had been added to the case. 'When this copy-paste method is adopted even in such serious matters, it is not a good indication for the criminal justice system and, therefore, we are taking cognisance of it. We want the State to come out with specific guidelines for the investigating officers, also in respect of how to record the statements,' the court said. The Bench appointed advocate Mukul Kulkarni as amicus curiae. 'He may collect data and suggest measures to be taken by the State government to avoid such situations of copy-pasting, and overall improve the quality of the investigation. He may prepare a complete petition and file it on or before 20th June, 2025,' the court said. The court placed the matter for further hearing on June 27.
