Pratima Achhendra Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jun 2013APPLN/434/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application seeking cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent husband in a Section 498A IPC case, the applicant alleged failure to recover stree dhani property. The High Court rejected the cancellation petition but directed the Investigating Agency to further investigate the search and recovery of the property.

What did the court decide?

Application for cancellation of bail rejected but directions issued for further investigation to recover stree dhani property.

Pratima Achhendra Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

1/3 (911)APPLN-434-12

¶2

Tilak

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.434 of 2012

¶6

Smt.Pratima Achhendra Singh ... Applicant versus The State of Maharashtra & ors ... Respondents

¶7

Mr.Omprakash Pandey i/b M/s.Pandey & Co. for the applicant. Ms.Daisy Abraham, Advocate for respondent nos.2, 3 and 5. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.

¶9

DATED : JUNE 20, 2013

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1 Heard Mr.Omprakash Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. Heard Mrs.S.D.Shinde, learned APP for the State. Heard Ms.Daisy Abraham, learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 3, and 5.

¶12

2 The applicant is the wife of the respondent no.2. On the basis of a report lodged by her alleging commission of offences punishable under section 498A of the IPC and 406 of the IPC, a case has been registered against the respondent nos.2, 3, 4 and 5. The said respondents approached the Court of Sessions for Anticipatory Bail. After hearing the parties, the learned Sessions Judge granted Anticipatory Bail by an order dated 30 August 2011.

¶13

2/3 (911)APPLN-434-12

¶14

3 By the present application, the applicant prays that the Anticipatory Bail granted to the respondents, be cancelled.

¶15

4 The only ground urged in support of the application for cancellation of bail is that the streedhan property belonging to the applicant, has not been recovered in the course of investigation. It is pointed out that while granting Anticipatory Bail, the Court of Sessions had given certain directions to the Investigating Officer with respect to the streedhan property , but no such investigation was actually carried out.

¶16

5 The learned counsel for the respondent nos.2, 3, and 5 submitted that prima facie , the allegation that the streedhan property is with the respondents, is not believable. She submitted that as per the applicant’s own version, she was driven out of the matrimonial house sometime in 2007, and the First Information Report came to be lodged only in the year 2011. She submitted that in the year 2009, a petition for dissolution of marriage was filed by the respondent no.2, but in those proceedings before the Family Court, the applicant never raised any dispute about her streedhan property being wrongly held by the respondents.

¶17

6 It is not in dispute that investigating is over, and charge-sheet has been filed. The trial can commence at any time.

¶18

7 After considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, I do not think that a case of cancellation of the bail granted to the

¶19

3/3 (911)APPLN-434-12

¶20

said respondents, is made out. However, I think it fit to direct the Investigating Agency to further investigate with the object of recovery of the streedhan property and/or for ascertaining the truth in the matter with respect to the allegation of the misappropriation of streedhan property. After such investigation, report in that regard in accordance with the provisions of section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be submitted to the learned Magistrate, who may, if he thinks fit, take further action in the matter in accordance with law.

¶21

8 Subject to these directions, application is rejected.

¶22

( ABHAY M.THIPSAY,J )

Pratima Achhendra Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Achhendra Singh v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

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

Subhash Sahebrao Deshmukh Vs the Sr Inspector of Police Economic Offence Wing and Ors.

Suman Shankar Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vivek Vishnu Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mohammad Abdul Ajij Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Geeta Khare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Kiran @ D. K. Baban Dombale Vs the State of Mahrashtra