Bombay High CourtAPPP/1043/2015others disposed off

The State Of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Chanderrao Shitole And ANR

2017-09-21Hon'Ble Mrs. Justice Mridula Bhatkar2 pages

906.APPP1043_2015.doc Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 1043 OF 2015 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 992 OF 2014 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Vs.

Rajendra Chanderrao Shitole & Anr.

... Respondents Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the applicant/State. Ms. Bhakti Bhosle i/b. Mr. Rahul S. Kate, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: 21st September, 2017.

P.C.:

This Application is moved for cancellation of anticipatory bail, which was granted by this Court by the order dated 19th September, 2014 to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The respondents/accused, who are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant Rupali Dattatray Shitole, are charged under sections 307, 498A, 323, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 205 of 2014 registered with Daund Police Station, Pune Rural on 23rd June, 2014. As per the allegations, the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the complainant started harassing her on the ground of dowry, demanded Rs.4 lakhs from her father, tortured her and tried to kill her by pressing pillow on her mouth on 23rd June, 2014. This Court 1 / 2

906.APPP1043_2015.doc granted anticipatory bail to the respondent nos. 1 and 2/accused on 19th September, 2014 and in the said order, the accused were put to the terms that they shall reside separately away from the joint family house atleast for one year, so that the complainant who has left the house can come and stay in the joint family house. The State has filed this application on 8th December, 2015 for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondent nos. 1 and 2 for breach of terms and conditions imposed by this Court by order dated 19th September, 2014. On February, 2016 charge sheet was filed. Considering the nature of the offence and the reasons made out by the State, the Application deserves to be dismissed. 4.

Application is dismissed.

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 2 / 2