← Library
Bombay High CourtAPL/80/2016others disposed off

Ankur Sudesh Suri And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra

2016-02-04Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai2 pages

912_apl_80_2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2016 Ankur Sudesh Suri & Anr.

...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

.....

Mr. Shyam Kalyankar for the Applicants.

Ms G.P. Mulekar, APP for the Respondent -State. CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATE : 4th FEBRUARY, 2016.

P. C. :

The Applicants herein had sought modification of one of the conditions, viz. condition No.6 imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Bombay vide order dated 10.12.2015 in an application being Anticipatory Bail Application No.1201 of 2015.

2.

The Applicants herein had filed an application for anticipatory bail in apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.122 of 2015 for offences punishable under sections 498 A, 406, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC and sections 4 and 5 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The said application was granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay by order dated 10.12.2015. By one of the conditions viz. Condition No.6 the Applicants were directed to attend Meghwadi Megha 1/2

912_apl_80_2016 Police station on every Tuesday and Thursday until further orders. The Applicants had filed an application before the Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil and Sessions Court, Greater Mumbai, for modification of the said order. The said application came to be dismissed on the ground that there are allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the Applicants and that the presence of the Applicants is essential for the purpose of investigation. The learned counsel for the Applicants has submitted that the Applicants had already attended the police station on 15 occasions. He has further submitted that the main dispute between the parties is settled. He has placed on record copy of the consent terms filed before the Family Court in Petitioner No.C-52 of 2015 and B-36 of 2015.

3.

Considering the above statement, in my considered view the condition No.6 needs to be relaxed. Hence, the application is allowed and the condition No.6 imposed on the Applicants by order dated 10.12.2015 is hereby relaxed.

4.

Needless to state that the Applicants shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when required by the Investigating Officer for the purpose of interrogation.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) Megha 2/2