Arvind S/O Chandrabhan Kudmethe And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Parwa Police Station, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Anticipatory Bail Application No. 258 of 2022 Arvind S/o Chandrabhan Kudmethe and another

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Parwa Police Station, Tq. Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order Shri Vikas M. Kulsange, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Vinod Thakare, APP for the non-applicant. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

DATED : 25th APRIL, 2022.

The applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 84 of 2022 registered with Police Station Parwa, Tahsil Ghatanji, Dist. Yavatmal for the offence punishable under Sections 354-D, 420, 406, 499, 500, 506 read with Section 34 and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

2.

The allegations are that there was a demand of dowry and threats were given by the applicants and other accused persons. As far as Section 354-D of

Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is against the accused no.1.

3.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants are falsely implicated in the alleged offence on getting annoyed that the accused no.1 refused to marry the complainant. He, therefore, submits that the allegations made in the First Information Report are false and applicants are no way concerned with the alleged offence.

4.

On the other hand, Shri Thakre, learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposes the application and he has made available the case diary for perusal. It is submitted that the statement of witnesses were recorded by the Investigating Officer during the investigation and there are also screen shots of the conversations between the accused no.1 and the complainant which supports the case of the prosecution about the dowry demand and also as regards Section 354-D. He accordingly prays for rejection of this application.

5.

I have perused the case diary and also contents of the First Information Report.

6.

The allegations in the First Information Report prima facie do not show that the applicants have made any demand of dowry. General allegations are there about the demand of dowry by the accused persons. As no specific role is attributed to the applicants. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled for grant of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, I pass the following order.

ORDER

i.

Application is allowed.

ii.

The order dated 18th April, 2022 granting ad-interim anticipatory bail to the applicant is confirmed.

[ANIL S. KILOR, J.] by SACHINDANAND K NAIR Date: 2022.04.27 14:21:37 +0530 SACHINDANAND K NAIR