Allowed

Umesh Bhagwan Kedar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2012APPLN/3441/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This case is a bail application under Criminal Application No. 3441 of 2012 regarding offences under Sections 498A, 314, 315, and 316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants, arrested on 08.07.2012, prayed for release based on false accusations and completed investigation. The High Court allowed the application.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail upon execution of P.R. bond of Rs. 20,000/- and furnishing surety in like amount.

Umesh Bhagwan Kedar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

CRIAP-3441.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3441 OF 2012

¶5

Umesh S/o Bhagwan Kedar, 2. Seetabai Bhagwan Kedar, 3. Balaji S/o Venkat Bhatane, ... Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents

¶8

Shri N.D.Kendre, Advocate for the applicants Shri P.N.Mule,A.P.P. for respondents

¶9

CORAM : M. T. JOSHI, J. DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2012

¶10

P. C.

¶11

The present applicants, who are arrested on 08.07.2012, by Police Station Kingaon, in Crime NO. 58 of 2012 for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 314,315,316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, are praying for releasing them on bail.

¶12

The allegations are that the applicants being in-laws and husband of the deceased Mangal had illtreated her on various counts including demand of unlawful money, specifically by mother in-law. The deceased was pregnant at the relevant time. On 03.07.2012, complainant i.e. father of the deceased received phone call from Mangala that though she was pregnant, preceding two days she

¶13

2 CRIAP-3441.12

¶14

started bleeding. However, in-laws did not take her to any hospital and mother in-law i.e. applicant no.2 gave her some tablet due to which her condition worsened. Thereafter, she was taken to private hospital of Dr. Tapadiya, thereafter she was admitted to Rural Hospital, Parli, where she was aborted and died in the said hospital.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that false accusations have been made against the applicants only due to death of Mangala , which according to the complainant is unnatural. In fact, she died due to severe bleeding. The investigation is complete. Hence, prayer for releasing the applicants on bail.

¶16

4. Learned APP opposed the application.

¶17

Considering the fact that the investigation is almost complete, the application is allowed. The applicants be released on bail upon each of them executing P.R.bond of Rs. 20,000/- and also each of them furnishing surety in the like amount.

¶18

6. Criminal Application is disposed of.

¶19

(M.T. JOSHI, J.)

¶20

pnd/CRIAP-3441.12

Umesh Bhagwan Kedar and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umesh Bhagwan Kedar and Ors. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akshaykumar Uttamlal Jaiswal and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Madhusudan Ragho Bhangale Vs Akshaykumar Uttamlal Jaiswal and Ors.

Adinath Devidas Pondhe and Anr. Vs the State of Mah

Bandu Shahadeo Yeole and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

Jamilkhan Mustafakhan Pathan Vs the State of Mah

Parmeshwar Sopan Shinde and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.