Allowed

Rajesh Ramprasad Kanojiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Nov 2014ABA/177/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by a husband apprehending arrest in a case u/s 498A IPC and r/w s. 34 IPC. The court granted conditional bail on furnishing a bank guarantee and set conditions to prevent tampering with evidence and ensure cooperation with police.

What did the court decide?

Grant of anticipatory bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties.

Rajesh Ramprasad Kanojiya Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1.aba177.14.sxw

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 177 OF 2014

¶5

Rajesh Ramprasad Kanojiya. ... Applicant. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.

¶6

Mr. Santosh S. Mahamuni, advocate for Applicant.

¶7

Mr. A.S. Shitole, APP for State.

¶8

Mr. Ashutosh M. Dube, advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶9

CORAM : SMT.SADHANA S. JADHAV,J DATE : NOVEMBER 3, 2014

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard the learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for State. Heard learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2./original complainant also. Perused the papers.

¶12

2 This is an application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 505 of 2013 registered at Kolsewadi Police Station on 5/12/2013 for offence punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

Talwalkar 1/3

¶14

2 1.aba177.14.sxw

¶15

3 It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant is married to

¶16

the original complainant on 12/6/2006. The couple is blessed with a daughter. A discordant note has struck between the couple and hence, the complainant i.e. the wife of the applicant was constrained to leave her matrimonial home. The complainant has filed proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the applicant. The complainant has also filed proceedings under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act, 2005 which are pending. The complainant has also filed Petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

¶17

4 The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was protected earlier and he has not committed breach of any condition. Learned Counsel further submits that since the complainant has filed petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, there is every hope that the couple may come together. It is further rightly submitted that this would not be a fit case for custodial interrogation.

Talwalkar

2/3

3 1.aba177.14.sxw

5 Taking into consideration the papers of investigation and the submissions advanced across the bar, the applicant deserves grant of pre-arrest bail.

¶22

6 Hence the following order :

¶23

ORDER

¶24

(i) The application is allowed.

¶25

(ii) 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.

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence. (iv) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station as and when called and cooperate with the investigating agency to the best of his capacity.

¶27

7 The Application is disposed of on the above terms.

¶28

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV , J)

¶29

Talwalkar

¶30

3/3

Rajesh Ramprasad Kanojiya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Ramprasad Kanojiya 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

Ramdas Bagawan Kamtekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ramdas Bagawan Kamtekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mohinder La Arora Vs the State of Maharashtra

Narmadadevi Nebulal Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Alias Mohamad Ali Sattar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Mohan Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra