Sangita Ramesh Navgire v. State Of Maharashtra

1 / 5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2022 Sangita Ramesh Navgire .... Applicant versus State of Maharashtra .... Respondent .......

• Mr.Sudeep Singh a/w Ganesh Tiwari, Advocate for Applicant. • Ms.Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the State/Respondent.

CORAM

: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 23rd FEBRUARY, 2022 P.C. :

1.

The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.11/2022, dated 08/01/2022, registered with Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, under sections 304-B, 306, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard Mr.Sundeep Singh, learned counsel for the Applicant and Ms.Sharmila S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State.

3.

The FIR is lodged by one Mangal Narode in respect of Digitally signed by MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR Date:

2022.02.23 17:35:48 +0530 MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR suicide committed by her daughter Tanuja. She has stated that Nesarikar

2 / 5 Tanuja got married with the Applicant'

s son on 27/05/2021.

After that, she came to Bhandup to reside with her husband. After her marriage, she had visited the informant' s place on 2-3 occasions. She told the informant that the Applicant was complaining that the informant had not given utensils and ornaments in the marriage and on that ground the deceased Tanuja was harassed. The informant had called the Applicant and had told her that she would send the utensils. After that the Applicant had told not to send such articles as there was no space in her house. There are allegations in the FIR that the Applicant used to harass the deceased as she wanted money which she had spent in the marriage. On 05/01/2022 there was some quarrel between the deceased and the Applicant on the subject of the ornaments. Tanuja's husband told the informant that he would bring Tanuja to Pune on the next day. On 06/01/2022 Tanuja did not come to Pune. Therefore the informant called her. At that time, Tanuja told her that the Applicant had gone to her native place and therefore Tanuja did not come to Pune. At 03.00 p.m. on the same day, the informant

3 / 5 called her. That time Tanuja was talking with her husband, who said that the quarrel was over. After that the phone call was disconnected. On 07/01/2022 Tanuja committed suicide by hanging herself. On this basis, the FIR is lodged. 4.

Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the allegations against the Applicant are vague and not specific. No specific incident of harassment is mentioned. On the date of incident the Applicant was not staying with the deceased and the husband, but she had gone to her native place. As is mentioned in the FIR, the quarrel between the Applicant and the deceased was over. When the incident took place, only the husband of the deceased was with the deceased. The proximate cause perhaps was some dispute between the husband and wife. After the incident, the husband i.e. the Applicant's son tried to commit suicide by consuming poison, but he was saved; but on second occasions in February 2022 he hanged himself and committed suicide. Therefore, the Applicant'

s custodial interrogation is not necessary.

4 / 5 5.

Learned APP on instructions submitted that the investigating agency does not want to arrest the Applicant. It would be sufficient if the Applicant attends the police station as and when called.

6.

I have considered these submissions. The allegations in the FIR are indeed vague against the present Applicant. No specific incidents are mentioned. The informant had showed willingness to send utensils as asked by Tanuja. But the Applicant herself had told the informant not to send such articles. That also shows that the Applicant did not really expect anything from Tanuja's mother. There is considerable substance in learned counsel'

s submissions that on the date of incident, the Applicant was not in the house. She had gone to her native place. The immediate cause does appear to be some discord between the husband and wife. The Applicant is not really concerned with the immediate cause of the incident because the quarrel between her and the deceased was over. At least one day before the incident, the Applicant had gone to her native place.

5 / 5 The Applicant has not only lost her daughter-in-law but has also lost her son because he had committed suicide. In this view of the matter, particularly when the Investigating Officer, does not want to arrest the Applicant, the application can be allowed. 7.

Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i) In the event of her arrest in connection with C.R.No.11/2022, dated 08/01/2022, registered with Bhandup Police Station, Mumbai, the Applicant is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.

(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)