Nagma Ruksar Shamshad Ali Hasmi v. Attaulla Abdul Latif Hashmi And ANR

1 of 2 19 & 20.APPLN.181.2016.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.181 OF 2016 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.182 OF 2016 Nagma Ruksar Shamshad Ali Hasmi Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra and another Respondents Mr.Lakshmikant M. Shukla for applicant in both applications. Mr.Y.Y.Dabake, APP, for State in both matters. CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

DATE : 13th August 2021 PC :

1.

The applicant is original complainant in CR No.1 of 2016 registered with Jogeshwari Police Station for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 328, 354A, 504, 506(2) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the applicants are preferred for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent no.1 in both the applications. 2.

The case of complainant is that her marriage was performed in 2013. The accused caused harassment to her. Her mother-in-law gave her some substance to drink. She felt giddiness. She was taken for treatment. One of the accused indulged in the act of outraging modesty. The accused demanded sexual favour from her. 3.

The respondent no.1 in both the applications are father-in-law MANISH SURESH THATTE MANISH SURESH THATTE Date: 2021.08.17 16:56:03 +0530 and mother-in-law of the complainant. They had preferred applications for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions. The

2 of 2 19 & 20.APPLN.181.2016.doc applications were allowed vide separate orders dated 12-2-2016. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that serious allegations were made against them. Custodial interrogation of the accused was necessary. The order granting anticipatory bail was erroneous. 4.

Undisputedly pursuant to the order granting anticipatory bail, investigation was completed and charge sheet is filed. The proceedings are numbered as CC No.281 of 2016 and same are pending before concerned Court. I have perused the orders dated 12-2-2016. Learned Judge has analyzed the factual aspects and by assigning reasons the applications were allowed on certain conditions vide order dated 12-2-2016. Charge sheet is already filed against accused. The dispute is on account of matrimonial discord between parties. Complainant has also initiated proceedings under Domestic Violence Act. Considering these aspects, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order granting anticipatory bail to respondent no.1 in both these applications. Accordingly, both the Criminal Applications are rejected. Trial is expedited. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST