Criminal Appeals regarding bail applications in cases arising from the suicide of a woman named Shobha. The court examined allegations of harassment and mental treatment. Bail was rejected for the husband but granted with conditions for the brother-in-law.
Bail rejected for Kiran; Pradip released on personal bond and surety of Rs. 10,000.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
Criminal Application No.802/2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.802 OF 2011
Kiran s/o Ananda Bavaskar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicant Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1. Shri S.W. Mundhe, Advocate for respondent No.2
W I T H
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.633 OF 2011
Pradip s/o Ananda Bavaskar ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ... RESPONDENT
Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for applicant Shri V.H. Dighe, A.P.P. for respondent
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 29th March, 2011
PER COURT :
2
Criminal Application No.802/2011
3
Criminal Application No.802/2011
“122. The following factors and parameters can be taken into consideration while dealing with the anticipatory bail:
(i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made;
(ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a Court in respect of any cognizable offence;
(iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused’s likelihood to repeat similar or the other offences;
(v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her;
(vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people.
(vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which accused is implicated with the help of sections 34 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern;
(viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused;
(ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to
4
Criminal Application No.802/2011
the complainant;
(x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail.”
to release the accused/ applicant in terms of Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
putting him in fetters beyond 24 hours will lead to suspension from his service, he will lose the job. The accused/ applicant has to maintain a daughter born of the wedlock, who is dependent on him.
5
Criminal Application No.802/2011
There is no overt act after the accused/ applicant allowing to attend the investigator during the period of interim protection. Counsel submits, that the accused/ applicant has been framed at the behest of her brother and the relations.
(i) In 2005, the husband and in-laws demanded Rs. 30,000/- for purchasing shares of Reliance Company and Rs. 1,00,000/- for construction,
(ii) On 3.1.2011, the accused with his parents dropped Shobha at parental house where she again informed plight faced by her;
(iii) Thereafter her mobile was switched off.
6
Criminal Application No.802/2011
Consequently, parents of Shobha made a phone call which was attended by Sushilabai and surprisingly apprised that since one hour Shobha is not at abode. The brother has even complained, that the accused has even kept Shobha on occasion in lock, thereby preventing her from attending her duties.
Indian Penal Code for abetting the commission of suicide. Such other person necessarily be shown to have committed suicide. At
7
Criminal Application No.802/2011
this stage of the matter, death of his wife is not in controversy. Abetment is defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code to mean that, “A person abets the doing of a thing, who engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing, or intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing”. Applying these principles as a scale, primarily there is indiction of the accused/ applicant as he acted with indignity to Shobha.
8
Criminal Application No.802/2011
miserable affairs and she was, therefore, coerced and faced with the situation to have elimination of her precious life, leaving behind a child. Considering these aspects, the pre-arrest bail sought by the accused/ applicant Kiran Ananda Bavaskar is rejected. Interim protections are vacated. Observations are prima facie in nature.
K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE
fmp/cri802.2011
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant accused in FIRs and previous bail applications.
Whether the husband applicant was implicated in the suicide of his wife and should be released on bail.
Whether the brother-in-law applicant should be granted bail without sureties or with conditions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.Relied on¶18
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2010 STPL (Web) 1020 SC)
Kiran s/o Ananda Bavaskar
Pradip s/o Ananda Bavaskar
The State of Maharashtra
K. U. Chandiwал
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
