Poonam Ramesh Dharod v. Pratik Bharat Dedhia And ANR

rpa 1/3 16 appln 77 2018.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.77 OF 2018 Mrs.Poonam Ramesh Dharod .. Applicant

Versus

Pratik Bharat Dedhia and Anr.

.. Respondents ......

Ms.Racheeta R. Dhuru, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent - State. ......

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATED :

AUGUST 24, 2021.

P.C. :

This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.1 vide order dated 30th November, 2017, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay.

The applicant is the original complainant. FIR was Digitally signed by RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER Date:

2021.08.25 12:00:14 +0530 lodged on 21st November, 2017 against respondent no.1 for the RAJESHRI PRAKASH AHER offences punishable under Sections 35s4, 35s4 (D,, 5s0, and 5s0((2, of IPC. The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the respondent accused had abused the complainant, sent

rpa 2/3 16 appln 77 2018.doc objectionable messages to her and committed act of outraging her modesty. She was also threatened that the objectionable photographs would be made viral on the social media. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the custodial interrogation of respondent no.1 is necessary. The gold biscuits and bangles parted to the accused were not recovered. Learned Sessions Judge has erroneously allowed the application for anticipatory bail.

Learned APP, on instructions submits that pursuant to the order granting anticipatory bail, investigation is completed and charge - sheet is fled.

5s In the light of the fact that charge-sheet is fled, the question of granting custodial interrogation for the purpose of investigation, does not arise. I have perused the order dated 30th November, 2017. The learned Judge while allowing the application has observed that the informant had complaints about threats by accused and act of stalking. There was no complaint of cheating. The respondent no.1 had attended the police station.

rpa 3/3 16 appln 77 2018.doc ( In the light of the aforesaid factual aspects, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned order dated 30th November, 2017.

:: O R D E R ::

(i, Criminal Application No.77 of 2018, is rejected and stands disposed of accordingly.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)