Allowed

Sachin Yashwantrao Desai v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC19 Jul 2013ABA/655/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Bombay allowed the plea filed by an accused apprehending arrest under Section 498A and 306 IPC. The court held that as the applicant is a distant relative and not a member of the joint matrimonial family, he cannot be prosecuted under the Dowry Prohibition Act-related sections. The petition was allowed confirming a previous order.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; order confirming previous order of June 28, 2013; enlarged on bail on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

Sachin Yashwantrao Desai Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

Mhi 1

¶2

ABA-655-13 (copy).sxw

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 655 OF 2013

¶5

Shri Sachin Yashwantrao Desai ... Applicant (Orig. accused No.5) vs. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. A.P.Mundargi, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr. G.B.Naik, Advocate for the applicant.

¶7

Ms. P.P.Shinde,APP,for the respondent-State

¶8

CORAM: SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV,J. DATE : 19th July, 2013

¶9

P.C.

¶10

This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.98/2013 registered at Gadhinglaj Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

It is the case of prosecution that on 8.5.2013 Sheetal Babaso Desai lodged a report alleging therein that his sister Smita was married to Chandrakant Appaso Desai resident of Village Hiralge. Complainant had given birth to two daughters. She was harassed by her husband and her in-laws as they were demanding dowry from her and they were annoyed with her as she had given

¶12

Mhi 2 ABA-655-13 (copy).sxw birth to two daughters. The present applicant happens to be the son of the cousin brother of her husband i.e. he happens to be the distant relative of deceased Smita. He was not a member of the joint family of Smita. The contents of the F.I.R. do not indicate that during the lifetime, Smita had attributed any overt act to the present applicant.

¶13

The learned APP admits that the present applicant is not a member of the matrimonial family of Smita. It is a matter of record that he is a distant relative and does not interfere with the family affairs of Chandrakant Desai.

¶14

Learned Senior Counsel submits that the present applicant cannot be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC as he is not a relative of the husband of the deceased.

¶15

In view of this, the application is allowed. The order dated 28^th June, 2013 is hereby confirmed. In the event of arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount. The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall cooperate with the investigating agency to the best of his capacity.

¶16

Application stands disposed of.

¶17

(SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Sachin Yashwantrao Desai v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Yashwantrao Desai v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Latya Isam Kale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Lalit Popatlal Parekh Vs Vishvas Vasantrao Thorat and Anr.

Bst Textile Mills Private Limited Vs Bhutada Weaving Mills Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Arjun Arvind Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammad Mohasin @ Natu Moin Shaikh Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Anr.

Kamlesh Satyaprakash Agarwal Vs the State of Maharashtra