{"id":214954,"date":"2010-02-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-01-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010"},"modified":"2016-06-16T12:12:49","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T06:42:49","slug":"mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","title":{"rendered":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010<\/div>\n
Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar<\/div>\n
                                                1\n\n\n                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                               CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                        \n                        CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2009\n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n    1. Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf                                          )\n        Age 47 years, Singaporean National                             )\n        R\/o BLK 426, Bukit Batok West Ave 2                            )\n        #04-125, Singapore-650 426                                     )\n\n\n\n\n                                                               \n    2. Tetsyo Hiryama, Japanese National                               )\n         Age 62 years, R\/o BLK 426 Bokit Batok West Ave 2              )\n         #04-125, Singapore-650 426                                    )..Petitioners\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n                     versus\n\n    1. The State of Maharashtra \n                                \n         (Foreigners Regional Registration Office)\n                                                                       )\n                                                                       )\n\n    2. Union of India                                                  )\n                               \n        Custom, AIU                                                    )..Respondents\n\n    Mr. Ayaz Khan with Ms. Nilofer Saiyed  for the petitioners.\n    Mrs. A.S. Pai, Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent No.1-State. \n         \n\n    Mr.   D.J.   Khambata,   Additional   Solicitor   General,   with   Mr.   D.N.Salvi   for \n    respondent No.2. \n      \n\n\n\n                                               CORAM:  P.B.MAJMUDAR &\n                                                           R.G.KETKAR, JJ.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                DATED:  1
\n                                                              February, 2010
\n                                                          st
\n                                                                            .\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per P.B.Majmudar, J.)<\/p>\n
                    Whether a foreign national is required to be maintained by the <\/p>\n
    State in case such person is prohibited from leaving the country on the ground <\/p>\n
    that an appeal against acquittal order passed in his\/her favour by the Court is <\/p>\n
    stayed by the Higher Court is the principal question which is raised by the <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    2<\/span><\/p>\n
    petitioners in the present criminal writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
    2.            Petitioner No.1 is a Singapore national and petitioner No.2 is a <\/p>\n
    citizen of Japan.   They are wife and husband respectively.   The petitioners <\/p>\n
    were   arrested     on   27th  November,   2000   by   the   Officers   of   Customs,   Air <\/p>\n
    Intelligence Unit, Mumbai, at the International Airport, Mumbai,  for alleged <\/p>\n
    violation of the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. A complaint vide NDPS Special <\/p>\n
    Case No. 21 of 2001   came to be filed against the petitioners. By an order <\/p>\n
    dated 19th December, 2006, the petitioners were convicted  by the trial Court <\/p>\n
    and they were sentenced to suffer   rigorous imprisonment for ten years on <\/p>\n
    each count and to pay a fine of Rs. One lakh on each count.   The aforesaid <\/p>\n
    conviction was challenged by petitioner No.1 by way of criminal appeal being <\/p>\n
    Criminal Appeal No. 162 of 2007.   Petitioner No.2 also preferred an appeal <\/p>\n
    being Criminal Appeal No. 325 of 2007  against the order of conviction. The <\/p>\n
    learned   single   Judge   of   this   Court,   by   an   order   dated   30th  January,   2009, <\/p>\n
    allowed the respective appeals preferred by the petitioners and the petitioners <\/p>\n
    were  acquitted in connection with the aforesaid Special Case  No. 21 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
    3.            The   petitioners   thereafter   approached   the   Foreigners   Regional <\/p>\n
    Registration Office(hereinafter referred to as “FRRO”), Mumbai, for issuance <\/p>\n
    of exit permit as they wanted to go back to their home country.  Since the exit <\/p>\n
    permit was not granted to the petitioners, the petitioners at that stage have <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
    filed the instant petition with a prayer that the FRRO be directed to grant exit <\/p>\n
    permit to the petitioners immediately  and FRRO be further ordered to legalize <\/p>\n
    the stay of the petitioners  in India by issuing necessary Visa.  It is also prayed <\/p>\n
    that the FRRO be directed to deposit  appropriate amount before this Court for <\/p>\n
    lodging\/boarding and medical expenses for the petitioners’ stay in Mumbai.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             At the relevant time when the petition was filed, the order of the <\/p>\n
    learned single Judge was  not challenged  before the Hon’ble Supreme Court <\/p>\n
    but it seems that after some delay an appeal was filed by the Union of India.\n<\/p>\n
    Initially, since there was delay in preferring the appeal in the Supreme Court, <\/p>\n
    the Supreme Court on 13th August, 2009, condoned the said delay and issued <\/p>\n
    notice. At that time, the counsel appearing for the respondents (petitioners <\/p>\n
    herein)   accepted   the   notice.   The   Supreme   Court   also   directed   that   until <\/p>\n
    further   orders,   the   respondent-accused   persons   (petitioners   herein)   were <\/p>\n
    directed not to leave the country.     Subsequently on 23rd  October, 2009, the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court granted the leave  and the  hearing of the appeal was ordered <\/p>\n
    to be expedited.  The aforesaid orders were passed  subsequent to the filing of <\/p>\n
    this petition.    In view of the same, prayer clause regarding direction to the <\/p>\n
    FRRO   to   grant   an   exit   permit   to   the   petitioners   is   not   sustainable   as   the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court has passed the order by which the petitioners were directed <\/p>\n
    not to leave the country and there is no question of now granting any exit <\/p>\n
    permit to the petitioners by the concerned department.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     4<\/span><\/p>\n
    5.             Mr. Ayaz Khan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, <\/p>\n
    however, submitted  that since  the  petitioners  have  no  source  of  income  to <\/p>\n
    sustain   themselves,   this   Court   may   issue   suitable   writ,   order   or   direction <\/p>\n
    directing the concerned department i.e. FRRO  to deposit  particular amount <\/p>\n
    for   the   boarding\/lodging   of   the   petitioners   as   well   as   to   provide   medical <\/p>\n
    expenses     to   the   petitioners   as,   according   to   the   leaned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners, petitioner No.1 is suffering from Cancer  and petitioner No.2 is of <\/p>\n
    advanced   age   and,   therefore,   appropriate   medical   facilities   be   provided   to <\/p>\n
    them.\n<\/p>\n
    6.             Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners     further   submitted   that   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners   are   not   in   a   position   to   leave   the   country   and   they     have   no <\/p>\n
    avocation and no income worth the name nor anyone is here to look after <\/p>\n
    them. Since the petitioners are residing at the mercy of some of their friends, <\/p>\n
    the   State   agency   be   directed   to   provide   them   maintenance  and\/or   provide <\/p>\n
    employment to them.   Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted <\/p>\n
    that   petitioner No.1 is not   in a position to take any employment and the <\/p>\n
    State should make an attempt to provide employment to petitioner No.2.  It is <\/p>\n
    submitted that petitioner No.2 is aged about 62 and that with great difficulty <\/p>\n
    he   is   able   to   understand   English   as   he   is   conversant   with   the   Japanese <\/p>\n
    language.  It is submitted that in view of the same, the State authorities may <\/p>\n
                                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      5<\/span><\/p>\n
    be directed to provide appropriate maintenance to  the petitioners as long as <\/p>\n
    they are required to stay in India.\n<\/p>\n
    7.             Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that under <\/p>\n
    Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India,   the   petitioners   are     entitled   to   be <\/p>\n
    maintained by the State and accordingly the State may be directed to provide <\/p>\n
    food and shelter to them as they are required to stay in India not on their own <\/p>\n
    volition but because of the  order of the  Supreme Court of India.   Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel   for   the   petitioners   submitted   that   the   department   had   preferred <\/p>\n
    appeal after considerable time  and  till the interim order was passed by the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court, the concerned department was required to issue exit permit <\/p>\n
    but they delayed the said proceedings and, therefore, they may be directed to <\/p>\n
    pay adequate compensation to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    8.             Mr. Khambata, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for <\/p>\n
    respondent No.1, submitted that since the appeal is already admitted by the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court  and in view of the order of the Supreme Court, the petitioners <\/p>\n
    are prevented from leaving the country, the petitioners cannot approach this <\/p>\n
    Court with a prayer that the State should either provide employment to the <\/p>\n
    petitioners or provide maintenance to them.  Mr. Khambata further submitted <\/p>\n
    that since the petitioners are directed by the Supreme Court not to leave the <\/p>\n
    country, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the Hon’ble <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    6<\/span><\/p>\n
    Supreme Court of India in connection with the prayers made in the present <\/p>\n
    petition.     Mr. Khambata further submitted that even otherwise at the time <\/p>\n
    when this petition was filed, the Supreme Court had not passed any order but <\/p>\n
    since the Supreme Court has admitted the appeal, this petition has become <\/p>\n
    infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
    9.            Ms. Pai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the <\/p>\n
    State of Maharashtra, submitted that at the time when FRRO   received an <\/p>\n
    application   from   the   petitioners   for   exit   permit   to   leave   the   country   after <\/p>\n
    acquittal,   the   department   entered   into   correspondence   with   the   Customs <\/p>\n
    Department,   who   are   the   prosecuting   agency,   and   the   prosecuting   agency <\/p>\n
    informed the State that they are contemplating filing of appeal, the exit permit <\/p>\n
    was not granted. Subsequently the Supreme Court admitted the appeal and <\/p>\n
    directed that until further orders, the petitioners were directed not to leave the <\/p>\n
    country.     Ms.   Pai   further   submitted   that   considering   the   facts   and <\/p>\n
    circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the FRRO has acted in an <\/p>\n
    arbitrary manner in not granting exit permit, though it  is true that at the time <\/p>\n
    when the exit permit was asked for, Supreme Court appeal was not pending <\/p>\n
    but since the prosecuting agency informed the FRRO that the appeal is under <\/p>\n
    contemplation that no immediate orders were passed by the FRRO for giving <\/p>\n
    exit permit to the petitioners. Ms. Pai further submitted that there are cases <\/p>\n
    when   a   foreign   national   leaves   the   country   and   subsequently   the   appeal <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
    against the foreign national is admitted but at that stage it is difficult to secure <\/p>\n
    his\/her  presence back in the country.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length <\/p>\n
    and have also examined the points raised before us in this petition.\n<\/p>\n
    11.           It is required to be noted that at the time when this petition was <\/p>\n
    filed, the prosecuting agency   had not filed any appeal before the Supreme <\/p>\n
    Court   as   the   Appeal   was   filed   after   the   period   of   limitation   and   in   the <\/p>\n
    meanwhile   the   petitioners   had   approached   the   concerned   department     to <\/p>\n
    grant them exit permit for leaving the country in view of the acquittal order <\/p>\n
    passed by the learned single Judge of this Court.  It is true that no orders were <\/p>\n
    passed   by   FRRO   immediately   thereafter   regarding   this   prayer   of   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners.   In our view, no fault can be found with the said department as <\/p>\n
    they  had   already  entered   into   correspondence   with   the   prosecuting  agency <\/p>\n
    and  they  were  told  by the  prosecuting   agency  that  they  are  contemplating <\/p>\n
    filing of appeal and, therefore, they did not take further steps in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    12.           It   is   further   required   to   be   noted   that   in   the   meanwhile   the <\/p>\n
    Hon’ble Supreme Court has already admitted the appeal and has passed an <\/p>\n
    interim   order   by   which   the   petitioners   were   restrained     from   leaving   the <\/p>\n
    country.     Under   these   circumstances,   it   cannot   be   said   that   the   FRRO   has <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  8<\/span><\/p>\n
    committed any error in not immediately giving exit permit to the petitioners as <\/p>\n
    the said department was informed by the prosecuting agency that they are <\/p>\n
    contemplating filing of appeal.\n<\/p>\n
    13.           So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners <\/p>\n
    regarding providing maintenance and shelter is concerned, we agree with the <\/p>\n
    submission   of   the   learned   Additional   Solicitor   General   that   the   matter   is <\/p>\n
    pending before the Supreme Court and it would be just and proper that the <\/p>\n
    petitioners may approach the Hon’ble Supreme Court for appropriate relief.\n<\/p>\n
    The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, vehemently submitted that <\/p>\n
    the   petitioners     have   approached   this   Court   under   Article   226   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution of India   with a prayer  that this Court should   adjudicate the <\/p>\n
    grievance of the petitioners on merits as the petitioners are required to be <\/p>\n
    maintained by the State when they are unable to leave the country.  According <\/p>\n
    to the learned counsel for the petitioners, this petition is maintainable and <\/p>\n
    appropriate writ be issued in connection with providing maintenance to the <\/p>\n
    petitioners during their stay in India.\n<\/p>\n
    14.           So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners <\/p>\n
    regarding violation of Article 21 of the Constitution by the State is concerned, <\/p>\n
    it is   to be mentioned that the petitioners can never be said to be illegally <\/p>\n
    detained in this country as the petitioners have been restrained from leaving <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      9<\/span><\/p>\n
    the country by virtue of the order passed by the Supreme Court  in an appeal <\/p>\n
    filed by the Union of India against an order of acquittal passed by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
    It   cannot   be   said   that   the   petitioners   have   been   deprived   of   their   life   or <\/p>\n
    personal   liberty   as   by   virtue   of   the   order   of   the   Supreme   Court,   they   are <\/p>\n
    restrained from leaving the country.  In a given case, a person can be deprived <\/p>\n
    of his liberty in accordance with the procedure established by law.\n<\/p>\n
    15.            Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be <\/p>\n
    said that the State has violated the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution <\/p>\n
    of India as the petitioners are now required to stay in India by virtue of the <\/p>\n
    order of the Supreme Court of India. It is required to be noted that so far as <\/p>\n
    providing   maintenance,   medical   expenditure,   etc.   to   the   petitioners   are <\/p>\n
    concerned,   it   is   no   doubt   true   that   the   provisions   under   Article   21   of   the <\/p>\n
    Constitution is available even to a non-citizen also.  In this behalf, it may be <\/p>\n
    mentioned that even for a citizen of this country, who is unable to maintain <\/p>\n
    himself,   there   is   no   policy   or   law   enacted   by   the   Government   to   provide <\/p>\n
    maintenance or shelter to even such  citizen. The learned Additional Solicitor <\/p>\n
    General,   in   our   view,   has   rightly   submitted   that   the   petitioners   cannot   be <\/p>\n
    placed on a higher footing than the citizens of this country but at the most the <\/p>\n
    petitioners,   in  a   given   case,   may   even   apply   for   work   permit,   though   it  is <\/p>\n
    pointed out to the Court that when a foreigner enters into the country with <\/p>\n
    tourist visa, he  is not permitted to  work.   The  learned  Additional Solicitor <\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                    10<\/span><\/p>\n
    General has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case <\/p>\n
    of    Indian   Drugs   &   Pharmaceuticals   Ltd.   vs.  Workmen,   Indian   Drugs   and  <\/p>\n
    Pharmaceuticals   Ltd. 1   wherein the Supreme Court has observed in para 52 <\/p>\n
    as under:\n<\/p>\n
            ” 52. No doubt, Article 41 provides for the right to work, but <\/p>\n
            this has been deliberately   kept by the Founding Fathers of
\n            our Constitution in the directive principles and hence made
\n            unenforceable in view of Article 37, because the Founding
\n            Fathers in their wisdom realised that while it was their wish
\n            that everyone should be given employment, but the ground <\/p>\n
            realities   of   our   country   cannot   be   overlooked.     In   our
\n            opinion, Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be stretched so <\/p>\n
            far   as   to   mean   that   everyone   must   be   given   a   job.     The
\n            number of available jobs are limited, and hence courts must
\n            take a realistic view of the matter   and must exercise self-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            restraint.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
    In our view, since the petitioners have come to India on a tourist visa and <\/p>\n
    according to law they are not permitted to work, this Court cannot give any <\/p>\n
    direction   under   Article   226   of   the   Constitution   of   India   to   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government to provide work permit to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
    16.           So   far   as   providing   medical   treatment   to   the   petitioners   are <\/p>\n
    concerned, medical aid is given at the Government Hospitals either free of cost <\/p>\n
    or in a given case on nominal charges, which is available to the citizens of the <\/p>\n
    country.  In our view, since the petitioners are not keeping good health, there <\/p>\n
    1 (2007) 1 SCC 408<\/p>\n
                                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   11<\/span><\/p>\n
    is no reason why free medical aid should not be given to the petitioners as <\/p>\n
    even under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, they are entitled to have <\/p>\n
    such   benefit.     The   State   Government   may   accordingly   consider   and   try   to <\/p>\n
    extend   such  benefits   to   the   petitioners  at  the   Government  Hospital  free   of <\/p>\n
    charge as the said benefit is given in case of needy and poor people who are <\/p>\n
    unable to get medical treatment.  Every citizen is accordingly entitled to free <\/p>\n
    medical   help   if   he   is   unable   to   incur   expenditure   in   connection   with   the <\/p>\n
    treatment.     Considering   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case,   the   State <\/p>\n
    Government may consider the question about extending free medical aid to <\/p>\n
    the petitioners as they are not in a position to spend anything as they do not <\/p>\n
    have any  other avocation or income to make payment for the same.\n<\/p>\n
    17.           As stated above, this Court cannot give direction to the State to <\/p>\n
    provide work permit to the petitioners, though during the course of hearing it <\/p>\n
    was   argued   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners     that   work   permit <\/p>\n
    alternatively can be given  to the petitioners  so that they can their livelihood.\n<\/p>\n
    Since there is no provision, in our view, no direction can be given to the State <\/p>\n
    to provide maintenance to the petitioners. Since petitioner No.1 is suffering <\/p>\n
    from cancer and petitioner No.2 is of advanced age, if any medical assistance <\/p>\n
    is required, the State may provide the same free of charge, as a special case.\n<\/p>\n
    18.           During the course of hearing, it is pointed out that the period of <\/p>\n
                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                12<\/span><\/p>\n
    visa is expired since long i.e. at the time when the petitioners were in jail.\n<\/p>\n
    Since the petitioners are already out of jail in view of the acquittal order of the <\/p>\n
    learned single Judge of this Court, unless the visa is extended,  it can be said <\/p>\n
    that they are unauthorisedly residing in India.   Mr.   Salvi, learned counsel <\/p>\n
    appearing for the Customs submits that unless Visa is extended, further stay of <\/p>\n
    the petitioners can be said to be unauthorised, even if they are prevented by <\/p>\n
    the order of the Supreme Court of India to leave the country.  In view of the <\/p>\n
    said submission of the learned counsel for the Customs, the petitioners may <\/p>\n
    apply to the FRRO for extension of their visa till the appeal filed by the Union <\/p>\n
    of India is decided by the Supreme Court.   If any such application is made, it <\/p>\n
    is for the FRRO to take a decision in accordance with law so that it cannot be <\/p>\n
    said that the petitioners are residing and moving freely even though their visa <\/p>\n
    had already expired.   It is for the FRRO to take appropriate decision in case <\/p>\n
    any application is received from the petitioners in this behalf.\n<\/p>\n
    19.          It is   pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that <\/p>\n
    various cases of foreign nationals are coming before the Courts where foreign <\/p>\n
    nationals   are   involved   in   criminal   offences   and   when   an   appeal   against <\/p>\n
    acquittal of such foreign citizen is pending and when they are out of  jail and <\/p>\n
    if they are unable to maintain themselves, the Central Government may frame <\/p>\n
    appropriate policy.  In our view, it is for the Central Government to consider <\/p>\n
    as to whether any such policy is required to be framed or not and this Court <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>
\n                                                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
    cannot express any opinion on this aspect.   It is left to the wisdom of the <\/p>\n
    Central Government as to whether any policy is required to be framed in the <\/p>\n
    eventuality of the cases like the present one.\n<\/p>\n
    20.            We may also clarify that when the appeal is pending before the <\/p>\n
    Supreme Court and if the petitioners have any other grievance, they should <\/p>\n
    approach   the   Supreme   Court   in   the   pending   matter   for   appropriate   relief.\n<\/p>\n
    This   Court   has   considered   the   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   for   the <\/p>\n
    petitioners  that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court may <\/p>\n
    give necessary direction, if there is violation of human right   or violation of <\/p>\n
    Article   21   of   the   Constitution   of   India.     In   view   of   the   submission   of   the <\/p>\n
    learned counsel for the petitioners, the aforesaid observations have been made <\/p>\n
    in this order.\n<\/p>\n
    21.            Subject to what is stated above, the petition is rejected.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                   (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                        (R.G.KETKAR,J.)<\/p>\n
                                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 15:33:59 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 Bench: P. B. Majmudar, Rajesh G. Ketkar 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1493 OF 2009 1. Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf ) Age 47 years, Singaporean National ) R\/o […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-214954","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3023,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\",\"name\":\"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010","datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010"},"wordCount":3023,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010","name":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-01-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-06-16T06:42:49+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-zainab-bte-yousuf-vs-the-state-of-maharashtra-on-1-february-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs. Zainab Bte Yousuf vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 February, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214954","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=214954"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/214954\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=214954"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=214954"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=214954"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}