Rajendra Chandramani Das v. The State Of Maharashtra
by SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE Date: 2022.06.21 19:58:10 +0530 SWAROOP SHARAD PHADKE 34 aba 1099 of 2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1099 OF 2022 Rajendra Chandramani Das ...
Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra ...
Respondent Mr. Pandit Kasar, for Applicant.
Mr. A.A.Palkar, APP, for State.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE :
20th JUNE, 2022 P.C.
1.
Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant and the learned APP for the State.
2.
This Application is preferred for anticipatory bail in connection with C.R.No.778 of 2019 registered with Sanghavi Police Station for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 3.
The Applicant is arraigned with the allegation that the marriage of the Applicant was solemnized with Rashmita (deceased) on 1 st July, 2012, the sister of the first informant. On 26 th October, 2019 the Applicant informed the first informant that the deceased committed suicide.
4.
The first informant alleged that since five years prior to the death of the deceased, there were frequent quarrels between the Applicant and the deceased over trivial issues and the Applicant used to bear her. The first informant claimed to have SSP 1/2
34 aba 1099 of 2022.doc tried to reason with the Applicant, but the latter continued to harass the deceased. 5.
On 25 th April, 2022 this Court was persuaded to grant interim pre-arrest bail opining, inter alia, that the allegations in the FIR were of general nature. 6.
The learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that no case for abetment to commit suicide is made out even remotely. The allegations in the FIR do not transgress ordinary wear and tear of martial life. 7.
The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Applicant appear to carry some substance. It seems, there were frequent quarrels between the Applicant and the deceased. Prima facie, the allegations are general and omnibus nature. The allegations fail to make out imperativeness of custodial interrogation of the Applicant to facilitate further investigation.
5.
I am, therefore, persuaded to allow the Application. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Application stands allowed.
(ii) Interim protection granted by order dated 25 th April, 2022 stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
(iii) The Applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 2/2