Sanjay Namdeo Bhole And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra
1/4 nsc.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1105 OF 2017 1.
Sanjay Namdeo Bhole 2.
Namdeo Ramchandra Bhole 3.
Bhamabai Namdeo Bhole ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
...Respondent
Mr.S.S.Chaudhari i/b. Mr.N.V.Gaikwad, for the Applicants. Mr.S.S.Hulke, A.P.P for the Respondent-State Mr.S.R.Pawar, for the Original Complainant.
Police Havildar - B.No.20 - S.Y.Mujawar, Manchar Police Station, Pune (Rural).
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 10th JULY, 2017 P.C. :
1.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2.
By this Application, the Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.134 of 2017 registered with the Manchar Police Station, District - Pune, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506 r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2/4 3.
Learned Counsel for the Applicants states that the Applicant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased; the Applicant No.2 is the fatherin-law & the Applicant No.3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. He submits that admittedly, the Applicants were residing in Indapur and that the deceased and her husband were residing at Manchar, Pune for about five years prior to the incident. He submits that the allegations are, essentially, as against Mohan. He submitted that as far as the presumption is concerned, the same will not apply as the marriage had taken place in the year 2007.
4.
Learned APP does not dispute the fact that the applicants were residing separately in Vakil Vasti, Taluka - Indapur, Pune, whereas the deceased and her husband were residing at Manchar, Pune. He, however submits that according to complainant - Nitin Bhosale, his sister- Jyoti (deceased) who was married to Mohan Bhosale in the year 2007, was treated well for sometime and thereafter all the accused including the applicants started demanding Rs.2 lakhs from Jyoti (deceased) for purchase of vehicle and household items.
3/4 5.
Learned Counsel for the original complainant supports the learned APP and opposes the application.
6.
Perused the papers including the complaint. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of deceased - Jyoti and applicant No.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Admittedly, the applicants were residing separately in Vakil Vasti at Indapur, whereas, Jyoti (deceased) was living with her husband - Mohan and two children at Manchar, Pune. It appears that the allegations as against the present applicants are general in nature. 7.
Considering the nature of allegations, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The application is accordingly allowed and the applicants are granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions:-
ORDER
(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicants be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount ;
4/4 (ii) The applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station as and when called, till the filing of the charge-sheet or for a period of three months from today, whichever is earlier;
(iii) The applicants shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.
8.
The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
9.
It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this application.
10.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)