Dismissed

Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2012APPLN/3402/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order rejects bail applications filed by the in-laws (Dorji and Wife) and the husband (Rameshwar) in a dowry and cruelty case involving severe assault and attempted drowning. The High Court held that the complainant, who was the eye-witness and suffered the assault, was credible enough to prevent bail grants.

What did the court decide?

Both Criminal Applications No. 3402 of 2012 and 3409 of 2012 seeking anticipatory and regular bail are dismissed.

Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

(1) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3402 OF 2012

¶4

1. Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe

¶5

2. Kausalayabai Annasaheb Kolhe APPLICANTS

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and anr. RESPONDENTS

¶8

AND

¶9

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3409 OF 2012

¶10

Rameshwar S/o Annasaheb KolheAPPLICANT

¶11

VERSUS

¶12

The State of Maharashtra

¶13

 RESPONDENT

¶14

.....

¶15

Mr. Nilesh S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶16

.....

¶17

CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
 DATED : 21ST AUGUST, 2012

¶18

ORAL ORDER:

¶19

1. Heard both sides.

¶20

2.Criminal Application no. 3402 of 2012 is for

¶21

grant of anticipatory bail, while Criminal
Application no.3409 of 2012 is filed for release on

¶22

regular bail in crime no.I-138/2012 registered with
Shevgaon Police Station, for the offence punishable
under section 307, 498-A, 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian

¶23

Penal Code.

¶24

(2) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶25

3.FIR is filed by Sau. Sonali Rameshwar Kolhe
i.e. wife of Rameshwar Kolhe, i.e. applicant in
Criminal Application no.3409 of 2012 and daughter-in-
law of the applicant Annasaheb S/o Balasaheb Kolhe
and his wife, i.e. applicants in Criminal Application
no. 3402 of 2012. The complainant, while taking
treatment in a private hospital at Shevgaon made a
complaint that after her marriage with Rameshwar on
18.5.2011, she was being ill treated by her husband
and the in-laws on the ground that she was not of the
liking of the husband and over that, her husband used

¶26

to beat her, while the father-in-law and mother-in-
law used to say that she should not be in her family
way i.e. be pregnant from her husband. However, she
had conceived. In the situation, on 2.7.2012, while
she alongwith her family members were working in the
residential premises, at about 3.00 pm. all the
present applicants started quarreling with her.
Father-in-law and mother-in-law beat her and all the

¶27

three applicants dragged her to the well and pushed
her in the same. However, since the water in the
well was less, she somehow survived and thereafter
FIR came to be lodged on 2.7.2012 with Shevgaon

¶28

(3) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶29

Police Station.

¶30

4.The case diary, however, shows that the

¶31

incident in question has occurred on 30.6.2012, but
different versions are given about the actual
incident by the complainant as well as some of the
witnesses of the same village recorded by the Police.
Applicant Rameshwar i.e. the husband of the
complainant was arrested on 5.7.2012 and is now in
Magisterial custody.

¶32

5.Learned counsel for the applicants submits

¶33

that though the incident in question has occurred on
30.6.2012, in the FIR only to show that it was filed
immediately, a false statement is made that the
incident has occurred on 2.7.2012. According to him,
it was merely a incident in which the complainant
herself jumped in the well. He further submits that

¶34

the papers itself would show that the complainant was
carrying for seven months and therefore, it is not
probable that any sane person would force a lady to
terminate the pregnancy at such a advanced stage.
According to him, there were no previous complaints
and the present complaint is purely an after-thought.

¶35

(4) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶36

Further, as regards the applicant Rameshwar, the
husband, he is in custody for a period of more than
six weeks and his presence is not required for
investigation purposes. Sofar as the parents of said
applicant is concerned, they are old persons and
nothing is to be recovered from them and in the
circumstances, he submits that anticipatory bail may
be granted to the applicants.

¶37

6.On the other hand, learned A.P.P. Mr. More
submits that the papers would clearly show that the
incident had occurred on 30.6.2012 and since that
day, the complainant was unconscious, upon admission
in the private hospital and in the circumstances, it

¶38

is merely some clerical mistake in the date of
incident while recording the statement of the
complainant, who had soon regained consciousness
immediately preceding the filing of the FIR.
He submits that the FIR of the complainant lady

¶39

itself would show that all the present three
applicants have actively participated in the

¶40

incident. Further investigation is to be completed

¶41

and hence he submits that at this stage, the
applicant Rameshwar cannot be released on bail, while

¶42

(5) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶43

his parents does not deserve to be released on
anticipatory bail.

¶44

7.Having considered the rival contentions of

¶45

the parties, it can be gathered that the incident in
question has occurred immediately after one year of
the marriage of the complainant with applicant
Rameshwar. Considering the fact that the complainant
herself is an eye witness of the incident, wherein

¶46

she herself has suffered and it appears that upon
regaining consciousness, she had filed the FIR,
in my view, this is not a fit case for releasing
Annasaheb and his wife i.e. the applicants in
Criminal Application no.3402 of 2012 on anticipatory
bail. As regards Rameshwar, though he is behind bars
for a period of six weeks, considering the nature of

¶47

the allegations and the submission of the learned
A.P.P. that some investigation is still to be carried
at this stage, he also does not deserve to be
released on bail.

¶48

8.In the circumstances, both the Applications

¶49

are dismissed. The applicants would be free to file
similar Applications for release on bail after the

¶50

(6) Cri. Appl. 3402-2012+

¶51

investigation is completed, which applications shall

¶52

be decided on its own merits.

¶53

Sd/-

¶54

 [M. T. JOSHI, J.]

¶55

arp/

Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annasaheb Balasaheb Kolhe and Anr. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

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

Hanaraj Yograj Patil Vs the State of Mah

Sau. Haribaibajirao Somwanshi Vs Haribhau Rajaram Ankulwar

Pramod Bhanudas Soundankar Vs the State of Mahrashtra

Balu Balbhim Gurav and Anr. Vs the State of Mah.

Rameshwar Ashokrao Gadekar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Pralhad Shivlal Dehangal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah