Allowed

Mr. Devang Rohit Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Aug 2007APPLN/2191/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a matrimonial dispute involving offences under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC. The High Court, noting the applicant's willingness to deposit Rs. 2 lakh to secure custody of alleged ornaments from Family Court, held that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. Bail was granted subject to monetary deposit and standard conditions.

What did the court decide?

Granted anticipatory bail for Rs. 50,000 with one or two sureties, conditional on depositing Rs. 2,00,000 with Family Court, reporting to IO, and refraining from interfering with witnesses.

Mr. Devang Rohit Sanghvi Vs State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

¶3

CRIMINAL APPICATION No.2191 of 2007

Mr Devang R. Sanghvi

..Applicant.

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra

¶8

..Respondent.

¶9

Mr Niranjan Mundargi, Advocate for the applicant.

¶10

Ms M. H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the Respondent No.1-State.

¶11

Ms Veena Gowda, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

¶12

CORAM: V.C. DAGA, J. DATED: 29th August, 2007.

¶13

P.C.:-

¶14

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned A.P.P.for the State and learned Advocate for the original complainant-respondent no.2.

¶15

Perused application and the material

¶16

available on record.

¶17

By this application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.,seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.115 of 2007 registered with Juhu Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

This is a matrimonial dispute between

¶19

( 2 )

¶20

husband and wife. The wife is alleging that

¶21

her husband has committed offence under Sections 498-A, 406 of the I.P.C.

¶22

One of the main contentions of the complainant is that the custody of the applicant is necessary in order to search and take possession of the gold ornaments alleged to have been given in the marriage.

¶23

It is not in dispute that divorce petition filed by the applicant-accused is pending in the Family Court at Bandra in M.J. Petition No.A. 1558 of 2004.

¶24

7.		Mr Mun	dargi, lear	ned counsel for the
applicant		subm	its	that acco	rding to	the
contents		in	the	F.I.R. v	alue of	gold
ornaments		shown	is	Rs. 3 lac.	He	further
submits		that	the	wife-complainant	has	also
moved	an	ap	plication	for return	of "St	reedhan"
in the		Family	Court	at Bandra	on 21.4.2006	and
same	is	order	ed t	o be hea	rd and	decided
alongwith		the	main	petition.	One of	the
questions		in	the	matrimonial	dispute	relates
to	the	"Stre	edhan"	which during	trial of	the
matrimonial		dispute,	can	be decided	on its	own
merit.		Mr.		Mundargi, thus,	submits that	the
applicant		is	ready	to deposit	Rs.2 lac	with

¶25

( 3 )

¶26

the Fami	ly Cour	t at Bandra within	four	weeks
from today	withou	t prejudice to the	rights	and
contentions	of	the applicant and	to	contend
that he	does	not have any ornaments	of	the
complainant	in	his possession.	The	last
submission	made	needs approval of	this	Court.
In view	of	the fact that the purp	ose of	the
custodial	investigati	on is only to	seek	or
trace gold	orname	nts alleged to be	belonged	to
the compla	inant.	If the deposit	of	Rs.
2,00,000/-	(Rupees	Two lac only )	is	ordered
to be	placed	at the disposal of	the	Family
Court, the	appre	hension and the c	omplaint	with

¶27

regard to the appropriation of the gold

¶28

ornaments can be taken care.

¶29

In aforesaid view of the matter, the submission made by Mr.Mundargi, could not be countered by the learned counsel appearing for

¶30

the complainant or the learned APP appearing for the State.

¶31

In the above

¶32

circumstances, the

¶33

statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant with regard to the deposit of the amount of Rs. 2 lac with the Family Court at Bandra, is taken on record. In view of this,

¶34

I do not see any necessity of custodial

¶35

interrogation of the applicant accused.

¶36

( 4 )

¶37

In the above view of the matter, I am

¶38

inclined to grant bail to the applicant in the sum of Rs. 50,000/with one or two sureties

¶39

to make up the said amount,subject to the following terms and conditions:

¶40

(a) he shall without prejudice to his defence or legal right deposit Rs. 2,00,000/(Rupees two lac only) with Family Court within

¶41

four weeks from today which shall be subject

¶42

to the result of the matrimonial dispute.

¶43

(b) He shall report to the Investigating

¶44

Officer as and when called.

¶45

(c) the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from

¶46

disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶47

(d) the applicant shall not pressurise

¶48

witnesses, of the complainant and that he

¶49

shall co-operate with the Investigating agency.

¶50

The applicant is put on notice that on a

¶51

( 5 )

¶52

report by the State in violating any of the

¶53

conditions by him, mentioned herein, shall result in cancellation of this bail order.

¶54

This order of anticipatory bail shall remain in force till the filing of the charge sheet. It would be open for the applicant to apply for regular bail before the regular Court.

¶55

Any observation made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case at the time of trial.

¶56

The application is allowed in the above terms.

¶57

(V.C. DAGA,J.)

Mr. Devang Rohit Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Devang Rohit Sanghvi v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetendra M. Tanna Vs Khushal Jain and Anr.

Rajendar Kiran Raghunath Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendar Kiran Raghunath Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr.Amit Agrawal Vs The State of Maharashtra

Mr.Amit Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abdul Gafarkhan Umarkhan Vs Mumtaj Salauddin Khatib and Anr.