Manoj Jagannath Patil And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra
934 aba 55 21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 934 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.55 OF 2021 Sunanda w/o Jagnath Patil, Age 51 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Vani Bk. Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
...
Applicant
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station in charge Dhule Taluka Police Station, Tq. & Dist. Dhule.
...
Respondent.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Patil Ujwal Subhash APP for Respondent/State : Mr. S.W. Mundhe.
Advocate for Assist to APP : Mr. P. B. Patil.
CORAM
: MANGESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 03.03.2021.
PER COURT :
The applicant mother in law of the informant is seeking bail in the event of her arrest in connection with Crime No. 426/2020, registered with Dhule Taluka Police Station, District Dhule for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 406 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Act, 2013. 2.
It is being alleged that the informant was married to the son of the applicant-mother in law on 26.05.2021. It is alleged that since inception she was subjected to cruelty. There was demand for money. Since she was not able to beget any issue she was taken to a preacher wherein black magic was practised and she was subjected to some rituals on 11.05.2019. It is then alleged that since she was started experiencing pain in abdomen she went 1/2
934 aba 55 21.odt back to her parental home. They had taken her to a doctor and after some time she was sent back for cohabitation with the husband. Even thereafter there was demand for money. Even the husband started insisting for divorce and by robbing off her 'Stridhan' she was driven out. 4.
After having heard both the sides it transpires that apart from the fact that there is some delay in lodging the F.I.R. much less pertaining to the practise of black magic to which she was allegedly subjected to, the allegations qua the mother in law are vague and omnibus. The allegations are being levelled after putting in almost nine years of marital life. The application to the extent of applicants husband and father in law has already been rejected. There being no special and exceptional circumstance attributing any overt act to the applicant-mother in law and when there are no allegations about any breach of the terms and conditions subject to which she was granted anticipatory bail, the same deserves to be confirmed. 5.
The Application is allowed. Ad-interim relief granted by the order dated 27.01.2021 stands confirmed with the same terms and conditions. (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) mkd/- 2/2