The State Of Maharashtra v. Urmila Ravindra Telgote

Diksha Rane 34. appln 122-19.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION DIKSHA DINESH RANE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.122/2019 DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2023.03.01 17:57:36 +0530 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT VS.

URMILA RAVINDRA TELGOTE& ORS.

..RESPONDENTS ------------ Mr. S. V. Gavand, APP for the applicant/State. None for the respondents.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : MARCH 1, 2023..

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned APP for the applicant/State.

2.

This is an application for cancellation of anticipatory bail which was granted in favour of the in-laws of the complainant by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane on January 2, 2019. The offence alleged is under Sections 498A, 420, 406, 465, 468, 377, 323, 504, 506(2) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

Learned APP submitted that looking at the accusations, this was a case of custodial interrogation and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, has committed an error in exercising the discretion in favour of the present 1/2

Diksha Rane 34. appln 122-19.doc respondents in granting anticipatory bail.

4.

I have gone through the First Information Report (FIR) and the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, which was passed as far back as on January 2, 2019. Thereafter, the charge-sheet has been filed on January 16, 2021. It is not the case that the respondent have committed the breach of any of the conditions imposed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane while granting anticipatory bail to the respondents. Further, it is not the case that the respondents have not co-operated with the investigation. 5.

I see no reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Thane. The application is rejected.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 2/2