Parbat Shantak Gavhane v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:3364
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 938 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2088 OF 2024 PARBAT SHANTAK GAVHANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Ms. Sakshi Ajit Kale APP for Respondent/State: Mr. A. A. A. Khan ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 06.02.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0187/2024, dated 19.10.2024, registered at Ashvi Police Station, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 352 r/w 3(5) of the B.N.S. 2023. 3] This court by order dated 09.12.2024 granted interim protection to the applicant, on the facts recorded at para 4 and submissions at para 5, as under:
"4. Applicant is the cousin father-in-law of the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant has send the bio-data of his son to the applicant
for marriage. It is alleged that applicant has introduced the persons named in the FIR, who have shown the girl to the son of the complainant. The persons named in the FIR have demanded amount of Rs.five lakh and asked the complainant for making expenses of marriage. On the say of applicant, the complainant paid amount of Rs.four lakh to the persons named in the F.I.R. and also bear the expenses of marriage of his son. After marriage, the girl left the company of the son of the complainant. Hence, the F.I.R. is filed by the complainant for deceiving them of Rs. four lakh. It is stated in the F.I.R. that group has been deceiving grooms by marrying them and thereafter leaving by taking money.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has received proposal for his nephew, son of the complainant, from one person from the group of persons named in the F.I.R. and accordingly, the applicant has suggested the name of the nephew i.e. son of the applicant for the purpose of marriage to them. His intention was not to cheat the complainant or son of the complainant."
4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this court, the applicant has attended the concerned police station and cooperated with the investigation. In response to this submission; regarding cooperation, the learned APP has not disputed the same.
5] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 09.12.2024 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.
6] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
7] 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.
8] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe