Allowed

Sandip Babu Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Jul 2014ABA/287/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed under Section 498A and 306 IPC. Relying on a prior decision regarding the interpretation of threatening language, the Court found the case fit for bail, imposing standard conditions including travel reporting and bond.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant released on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties.

Sandip Babu Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3 ABA 287 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.417 OF 2014 IN

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.287 OF 2014.

¶5

Sandip Babu Rathod .. Applicant. V/s.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶7

And

¶8

Mr. Tulshiram Jadhav, .. intervener.

¶9

Mrs Prabha Badadare, i/by Mr. Pramod R. Arjunwadmar, for the Applicant.

¶10

Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State. Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite, for the intervener and for applicant in Application NO.417 of 2014.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶12

DATE : 09^th July, 2014.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Application is moved for anticipatory

¶15

bail. The applicant accused is facing charges

¶16

under Sections 498A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read

¶17

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

¶18

registered with Mahatma Phule Chowk Police

¶19

Station, Kalyan, registered under C.R. No I 44

¶20

Page No.1 of 5

¶21

3 ABA 287 OF 2014

¶22

of 2014. The complainant Tulshiram Jadhav, who

¶23

is the father of the deceased has lodged complaint against the applicant accused. It is the case of the complainant that his daughter Sangita got married in 2006 to

¶24

applicant accused Sandip Rathod. He is working in Merchant Navy. After their wedding, his daughter and son-in-law started residing together. Out of their wedlock, two children

¶25

of 6 years and three years are born. However, from the year 2011-12, the behvariour of the applicant accused changed. He got promotion in

¶26

service and therefore, he wanted more money to meet his higher standard of living. It is the

¶27

case of prosecution that the applicant

¶28

accused asked the deceased wife to bring l0

¶29

lakh rupees from the complainant, otherwise he would perform second marriage. Sangita used to

¶30

tell these all instances of harassment to her

¶31

father. She also informed that she was assaulted as there was no fulfillments of the

¶32

Page No.2 of 5

¶33

3 ABA 287 OF 2014

¶34

demand of money. On 20^th January, 2014, Sangita

¶35

phoned her brother Satish and told that she had received phone from her husband i.e. applicant accused and he repeated demand of rupees l0 lacs and also told her otherwise to die. On the same day at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant received information on phone that Sangita had hanged herself and committed

¶36

suicide. On 21^st January, 2014, when they reached Kalyan, they found Sangita was dead. Hence complaint was lodged.

¶37

application. She submits that the applicant is serving in Merchant Navy and therefore, may not make himself available for investigation.

¶38

Perused the complaint. Perused the

¶39

statements of the other witnesses i.e. the brother of the deceased. Admittedly at the

¶40

time of incident, applicant accused was not in

¶41

the town. As per contents of the F.I.R. there

¶42

was demand of money since 3 to 4 years and

¶43

Page No.3 of 5

¶44

3 ABA 287 OF 2014

¶45

there was harassment. There was also phone on the same day of the applicant accused telling her to bring money or die. The learned counsel for the applicant accused has relied on the judgment of this Court, in Shivaji Shitole 7 ors -vs- State of Maharashtra reported in 2012 ALL MR (Cri) 2383, wherein Single Judge of this Court has held that using of words such as, “go and die” are abusive and humiliating but would not be a ground to instigation and that consequently, there would be no offence of abetment of suicide. Prima facie in view

¶46

of the judgment of this Court and so also the

¶47

contents in the F.I.R. and contents in the

¶48

statement of witnesses, I am of the view that it is a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Application is allowed on the following terms:-

¶49

Order

¶50

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest in above crime, he be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in

¶51

Page No.4 of 5

¶52

3 ABA 287 OF 2014

¶53

the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.25,000/-.

¶54

iii) The applicant accused is directed to inform his travel plan to the concerned police Statin whenever he leaves India for his duty.

¶55

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on 15^th July,2014 and 21^st July, 2014,

¶56

between 4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m.

¶57

iii) The applicant shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶58

iv) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶59

The Bail application as also the application for intervention, are disposed of accordingly.

¶60

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶61

Page No.5 of 5

Sandip Babu Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Babu Rathod 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bapurao Suresh Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajjan Jaywant Awatade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Namdev Ughade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Muppayya Mathapati Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammadali @ Popat Alishah Irani and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Satish Rambachan @ Bholu Murli Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra