← Library
Bombay High CourtABA/934/2017others disposed off

Vikrant Ravikant Tulaskar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2018-06-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.S. Gadkari2 pages

10-aba-934-17 Nalawade FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.934 OF 2017 Vikrant R.Tulaskar vs. The State of Maharashtra Office Notes, Office Memorandam of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. P.A.Bhangale i/by Randhir Singh for the Applicant. Mrs. Rutuja Ambekar, APP for the Respondent-State. Ms.Sunita Palvanapurum for Respondent No.2.

CORAM : A.S.GADKARI, J.

DATE : 12th June, 2018 P.C.

1.

By an Order dated 29.5.2018 the applicant was granted interim relief.

2.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant, the learned counsel for the intervener at length and the learned APP. Perused the record.

3.

The first informant is the wife of the applicant. The offence alleged against the applicant is under Section 498(A), 406, 494, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. A perusal of the first information report indicates that, major allegations made in the FRI are with respect to the second marriage performed by the applicant and the demand of dowry from the first Page-1/2

10-aba-934-17 informant. The record further indicates that the first informant has filed an elaborate complaint under Section 12 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 10th Court at Andheri, Mumbai in the month of August, 2014. It further appears from the record that the present first information report is replica of the said complaint with added allegations under Section 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. It is to be noted here that, the marriage of the first informant and the applicant was solemnized in 1992 and the present crime under Section 498(A) of the Indian penal Code is lodged on 5.11.2016. 4.

After perusing the record and taking into consideration the peculiar facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the applicant is entitled to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

5.

Interim relief granted by Order dated 29.5.2018 is hereby confirmed.

6.

Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (A.S.GADKARI, J.) Page-2/2