Amit Manohar Menghani 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.2183 OF 2018 1.
Amit Manohar Menghani 2.
Bharti Manohar Menghani 3.
Manohar Tulsidas Menghani ...Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Anr.
...Respondents
Mr.Aditya Sharma i/b Ms.Sudha Dwivedi, for the Applicants. Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State. Mr.S.B.Shelar, i/b Mr.I.A.Bagaria, for the Complainant. WPSI - Sharmila Patil, Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai. CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.
DATE : 9th JULY, 2019 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.433 of 2018 registered with the Oshiwara Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable under Sections
2/4 498(A), 406, 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 3.
Perused the papers. The applicant No.1 is the husband of the complainant, applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law and the applicant No.3 is the father-in-law. According to the complainant, she met the applicant No.1 through a marriage portal named Sahiti Panchayat in October 2015 and thereafter got married to the applicant No.1 on 25th October, 2015. According to the complainant, the applicant No.2 demanded gold jewellery and other household items in November, 2015 during Diwali, from the complainant, however, as the economic condition of her parents was poor, she did not inform the same to her parents. From the said wedlock a son was born to the couple on 1st April, 2016. It is alleged by the complainant that the applicants - accused would ill-treat and harass her. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.
2,000/- was being withdrawn from the ATM Card every month as her monthly expenses. She has also alleged that applicant No.2 would treat her like a servant and applicant No.1 would listen to applicant No.2 and would abuse her. The complainant has further alleged that when she was pregnant, she was not given proper food during the pregnancy and was made to do the household jobs.
3/4 birth to a son on 1st April, 2016, she was not allowed to drink enough water by the applicant No.2 stating that 'if she drinks more water, it will make the milk thinner in her body.' She has further alleged that the applicants demanded jewellery on the birth of their son, however, her parents refused to fulfill the said demand.
4.
The applicants were granted interim protection by this Court vide order dated 24th October, 2018. Learned Counsel for the applicants states that the applicants have deposited an amount of Rs.20 lakhs in the Registry of this Court. He further states that the applicants will not withdraw the said amount, till the issue is finally decided by the trial Court.
5.
Considering the aforesaid and in the facts of the case, 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:-
4/4
ORDER
(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicants be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties in the like amount ;
(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;
(iii) The applicants shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency. 6.
The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.
7.
It is made clear, that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this application.
8.
All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.