The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to three applicants (husband's parents and sister-in-law) in a matrimonial dispute. The court held their allegations related to harassment did not warrant custodial interrogation.
Released on bail of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety in like amount.
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.
avk
1
ABA-119-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.119 OF 2012
SAIESH GIRJASHANKAR TRIPATHI AND ORS. )...APPLICANTS
V/s.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
)...RESPONDENT
Mr.Abhishek R. Singh Advocate for the Applicants. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar APP for the State.
CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE, J. DATE : 24th FEBRUARY, 2012.
P.C. :
This application is pressed only to the extent of applicant nos.2, 3 and 4, who are parents in law and sister in law of the complainant. The learned APP produced before me the police papers, from which I could read the complaint dated 18.2.2012. On perusal of the same, I found that the allegations against the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 are in respect of harassment. The most important allegation that the ornaments belonging to the complainant were taken away from her custody is made against the applicant no.1 – husband. This being a matrimonial dispute, the role attributed to the applicant nos.2, 3 and 4 does not require their custodial interrogation. I am therefore inclined to grant them protection of anticipatory bail.
2
ABA-119-2012
avk
The applicant nos.2, 3 and 4, if arrested in Crime No.27 of 2012 of Kalyan Taluka Police Station, they be released on bail of Rs.20,000/- each, with one surety each, in the like amount.
(A.V.NIRGUDE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to in-law relatives of the complainant in a matrimonial dispute.
Whether custodial interrogation or arrest is required given the nature of allegations against the applicants.
SAIESH GIRJASHANKAR TRIPATHI AND ORS.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
A.V.NIRGUDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
