Thane Court Denies Bail to Mira Road Brothers Accused of Assaulting Wife Over Daughters
On July 4, the Thane Sessions Court rejected the anticipatory bail applications of two brothers from Mira Road who are accused of brutally assaulting a woman because she gave birth to four daughters instead of a son. Additional Sessions Judge B.D. Shelke denied pre-arrest bail to the husband, Parvez Ahmed Siraj Pasha, and his brother, Tausheef Ahmed Pasha, citing strong prima facie evidence of severe physical abuse.
The court noted that the victim sustained multiple injuries, including fractures. These injuries, visible in photographs submitted during the proceedings, were corroborated by the First Information Report (FIR) as well as medical records issued by the Bhaktivedant Hospital and Research Institute.
The accused brothers had sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), apprehending arrest in connection with a case registered at the Nayanagar Police Station. They have been booked under Sections 85, 118(1), 118(2), 79, 351(2), 352, and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which includes offences punishable with imprisonment extending up to life.
According to the prosecution, the victim married Parvez in 2014, and the couple has four daughters. The prosecution alleged that after the birth of their second daughter, the woman was repeatedly subjected to cruelty, harassment, humiliation, and physical assault by her husband and his family members for not giving birth to a male child.
The prosecution further alleged that on May 12, 2026, the husband became violent and assaulted the woman with a belt and stick, leaving her with serious injuries and fractures. The assault was allegedly witnessed by one of the couple's minor daughters, who alerted the victim's maternal family. They subsequently intervened and shifted her to Bhaktivedant Hospital for treatment.
The defence argued that the FIR was a fabricated outcome of a matrimonial dispute and pointed to a delay in lodging the complaint. The defence also claimed that WhatsApp conversations and other documents contradicted the allegations, contending that the victim's family had falsely implicated the accused after monetary demands were not met.
However, the court found that the medical evidence, injury certificates, investigation papers, and photographs supported the allegations at this stage of the investigation. Judge Shelke observed that, given the relationship between the accused and the complainant, there was a possibility of the accused threatening the victim or prosecution witnesses, tampering with evidence, or interfering with the ongoing investigation.
