Vaibhav Vaijnath Munde v. The State Of Maharashtra

2025:BHC-AUG:839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1360 OF VAIBHAV VAIJNATH MUNDE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V. S. Wakale APP for Respondent-State: Mr. B. B. Bhise Advocate for Assist to PP : Mr. G. B. Chate ...

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

DATE : 09.01.2025 P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2] The applicant has approached this Court apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 201/2024, registered with Kingaon Police Station, District Latur, for the offences punishable under sections 313, 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. 3] Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this court vide order dated 21.08.2024 has granted interim protection to the applicant. Primarily the allegations against the applicant are that when the informant was pregnant of

around 5 weeks, the applicant had given some medicines to her which caused her termination of pregnancy. It is also alleged that, when the applicant came at Lahanewadi for cultural festival at that time, the applicant demanded amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for starting shop.

4] It is also alleged that the applicant has physical relations with other lady prior to the marriage with complainant.

5] The learned APP submits that statement of the applicant was recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C statement and the case is made out against the applicant. He therefore prays for rejection of the application. 6] From perusal of the F.I.R. it is seen that the allegations against the applicant are that the pregnancy of complainant is terminated by the applicant by giving medicines and there is demand of money for starting shop and some allegations are in respect of obscene photographs of the informant sent to her uncle.

7] From the record, it appears that there were prior disputes between the informant with the applicant and as such present complaint is filed by the wife (complainant).

8] Considering that, there are some disputes between the parties and prima facie the allegations made in the complaint shows that there is possibility of exaggeration by the wife, I deem it appropriate to confirm the interim protection granted earlier.

9] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 21.08.2024 stands confirmed, on the following terms:

i] The applicant shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

10] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

11] It is also clarified that the observations made in

this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

12] The application stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE RPB