Pruthviraj Motilal Sutar And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2024:BHC-AUG:18884 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 76 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2024 1.

Pruthviraj Motilal Sutar 2.

Motilal Manohar Sutar 3.

Meera Motilal Sutar ...Applicants 1.

The State of Maharashtra 2.

The Superintendent of Police, Beed

...Respondents

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Savant Vilas P APP for Respondents: Mr. P.S. Patil Advocate for assist to A.P.P. : Mr. A.L. Kanade .....

CORAM : SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2024.

PER COURT :- 1.

The learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, seeks leave to withdraw this application to the extent of applicant No.1 Pruthviraj Motilal Sutar. Leave granted. The application of applicant No.1 is disposed of as withdrawn.

2.

In so far as applicant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, they apprehend arrest in connection with crime No. 211 of 2024 registered with Talwada Police Station, district Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 506 r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3.

It is the prosecution's case that the engagement was performed between the accused No.1 and the deceased. It is

-2alleged that after engagement, the applicants who are father and mother of accused No.1 and proposed father-in-law and mother-inlaw of the deceased, harassed the deceased to give an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry. It is alleged that on that count the applicants had also harassed the informant. It is alleged that due to continuous harassment of the applicants and accused No.1, deceased, who was daughter of the informant, committed suicide. 4.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants have been falsely implicated in this case. The marriage was not performed between the deceased and the son of the applicants. No dowry amount was demanded, as alleged by the informant. Considering the allegations against the applicants, their custodial interrogation is not required and requested to allow the application.

5.

It is the contention of the learned APP alongwith learned counsel to assist the A.P.P. that the marriage was fixed between the son of the applicants and the daughter of the informant. Engagement was done. The applicants were asking the deceased daughter of the informant to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- as dowry and they were continuously harassing the informant's daughter. Due to their harassment, she has committed suicide. Considering the allegations against the applicants, their custodial interrogation is required and

-3requested to reject the application.

6.

I have heard all the learned counsel. Perused the F.I.R. and the police papers produced on record. The allegations against the applicants are that they harassed the informant's daughter to give dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. It appears from the record that no marriage was performed between the informant's daughter and the applicants' son. The main allegations are against the accused No.1. During investigation, the police have seized the Whatasapp chat between accused No.1 and the daughter of the informant. It shows that the accused No.1 had threatened the informant's daughter. So the main allegations are against the accused No.1, who has withdrawn his bail application. Considering the allegations against the applicants, their custodial interrogation is not required and I pass the following order :-

O R D E R

(i) The application is allowed.

(ii) The interim anticipatory bail granted to the applicant Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 29.07.2024 stands confirmed on the same terms and conditions.

(SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.) rlj/