Karishma Ashish Chandani v. The State Of Maharashtra And ORS

1 of 2 18.APPLN.158.2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.158 OF 2016 Karishma Ashish Chandani Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents None for applicant.

Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP, for State.

PSI Parulekar, Santacruz Police Station, present. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 13th August 2021 PC :

1.

This is an application for cancellation of bail granted to respondent nos.3 to 5. The applicant is the original complainant. The FIR was registered on 21-3-2015 alleging offences under Sections 498A, 406 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. It was alleged that the husband and in-laws of the complainant had demanded money and for not fulfilling the demand the complainant was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. The stri-dhan of the complainant was misappropriated.

2.

The respondent nos.3 to 5 had preferred application for anticipatory bail before Court of Sessions. The respondent no.3 is the husband and respondent nos.4 and 5 are father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively of complainant. By order dated 16-7MANISH SURESH THATTE MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2021.08.17 16:56:01 +0530 2015 learned Additional Sessions Judge allowed the application for anticipatory bail.

2 of 2 18.APPLN.158.2016.doc 3.

The complainant has contended that the order granting anticipatory bail to respondent nos.3 to 5 is required to be cancelled. The complainant was harassed by the accused. Her stri-dhan was misappropriated.

4.

Learned APP, on instructions, submitted that investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed against respondent nos.3 to 5 and case is pending before concerned Court.

5.

The dispute arises out of matrimonial discord between parties. Anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents on 15-7-2015. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has assigned reasons for allowing said application Subsequently investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. There is no reason to interfere in the order. Hence, Criminal Application is rejected.

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST