Allowed

Dhannanjay Vishnu Dompe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Jul 2013APPLN/3451/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Application for bail against two applicants (husband and son-in-law) accused of rape. The Court observed the FIR allegations and threats by the father. The Court held it undesirable to keep applicants in custody and granted bail with security, probation, non-tamper conditions, and restricted movement order.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed with security of Rs. 15,000 each. Non-tamper order and prohibitory order on entering Navalgaon Taluka passed.

Dhannanjay Vishnu Dompe and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

criapln3451-13.odt

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3451/2013

¶5

1] Dhananjay Vishnu Dompe

¶6

2] Gangasagar W/o Vishnu Dompe

¶7

V/s

¶8

The State of Maharashtra

¶9

Shri M.V.Ghatge,Adv.for applicants Shri P.P.More,APP for State

¶10

CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE,J. DATE : 24TH JULY, 2013.

¶11

ORAL ORDER :

¶12

The application is filed for bail. Both sides are heard.

¶13

2] This Court has perused papers of investigation. The FIR is given by wife of applicant no.1. She was given in marriage to applicant no.1 on 29/4/13. She has made allegations that on 4/6/13, when her husband was at home, and when her mother in law, applicant no.2 was also not at home, her father in law committed rape on her. She has made allegations against applicants that when she informed about the incident to them, they did not question the father in law and on the contrary, they scolded

¶14

2 criapln3451-13.odt

¶15

her by saying that she was making false allegations against father in law. She went to the house of parents on 11/6/13. When present applicant no.1 had taken her to see a relative in hospital. Report came to be given on 12/6/13. Applicants are behind bars since 12/6/13.

¶16

3] Aforesaid record shows that main allegations are against father of applicant no.1. There is possibility that applicant no.1 was helpless and he was under thumb of his father. There is allegation against applicant that on 9/6/13, when the complainant was about to disclose the incident to her father who had visited their place, the applicant no.1 and his father gave threat to her that they would finish her father and due to that she could not disclose the incident to her father. In view of such allegations, this Court holds that it is not desirable to keep the applicants behind bars.

¶17

4] In the result, application is allowed. Applicants are to be released on bail on their furnishing PR and SB of Rs.15,000/each. They are not to tamper with prosecution witnesses. They are not to enter Navalgaon, Tq. Palam, Dist.Parbhani, where complainant is residing.

¶18

[T.V.NALAWADE,J.]

¶19

umg/

Dhannanjay Vishnu Dompe and Another v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhannanjay Vishnu Dompe and Another 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kisan@Kishor Raju Chabukswar and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivraj Parappa Gunjakar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Revsingh Nata Pawara Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ranjeet Abhangrao Sawant and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Balasaheb Sambhaji Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saleha Begum Shaikh Shahid Ahmed@ Saleha Begum Mohammad Sattar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another