Allowed

Sanjay Bhopu Aade and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Bombay HC14 Mar 2012APPLN/584/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court at Aurangabad allowed Criminal Application No. 584 of 2012 against an FIR u/s 498-A, 307, 504 r/w 34 IPC, holding that the police report supported the applicants' plea that they were not present at the scene of the incident.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No. 584 of 2012 allowed. Personal bond and solvent surety required in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each.

Sanjay Bhopu Aade and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Anr. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2012

¶4

1. Sanjay S/o.Bhopu Aade,
Age24 years, OccuEducation,
2. Bhopu S/o.Sheku Aade, Age65 years, OccuAgriculturist and Labourer,
3. Yamunabai W/o.Bhopu Aade, Age60 years, OccuAgriculturist and Labourer,
4. Raju S/o.Bhopu Aade,
Age35 years, OccuAgriculturist and Labourer,
All are R/o.Pawarwadi Tanda, Post Pachegaon, Tal.Georai, Dist.Beed	APPLICANTS
VERSUS
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Georai, Dist.Beed.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Beed, Dist.Beed	RESPONDENTS
Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned advocate for the applicants.
Mr.S.B.Pulkundwar, learned A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶5

(CORAM : A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶6

DATE : 14/03/2012

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

Crime No.326/2011 has been registered against the applicants u/s.

¶9

498A, 307, 504 r/w. 34 of IPC with Police Station Georai, Dist. Beed.

¶10

¶11

Heard parties. Perused the case diary.

¶12

FIR contains allegations of illtreatment over dowry related demands against one amongst the applicant namely Sanjay Aade alongwith other accused.

¶13

It has been argued that on the given date of incident, applicant no.1,2 and 3 were not available at the place of incident.

¶14

It prima facie appears that the accusations may not be factual since it has enumerated that on the given date of incident, applicants no.1 to 3 were not available at the place of incident.

¶15

Police report supports the plea of applicants. In this situation, entire story couched in FIR comes under doubt. Therefore, the applicants have made out case for the relief sought for.

¶16

Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘C’. The personal bond and solvent surety shall be in a sum of Rs.10,000/ each.

¶17

(A.H.JOSHI, J.)

¶18

khs/MARCH 2012/58412

Sanjay Bhopu Aade and Ors. v. the State of Mah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Bhopu Aade 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

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amol Raghunath Chabukswar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Sunil@Dada Narayan Nath Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Maroti Punjaram Nazan Vs the State of Mah

Babasaheb Balaji Wakhre Vs State of Maharashtra

Maulana Fakroddin Shaikh Vs the State of Mah

Mahadev Vitthal Bhise and Anr. Vs the State of Mah