Allowed

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jul 2014ABA/372/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant accused for offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC involving dowry harassment and assault allegations, subject to specific conditions including regular police station attendance and travel restrictions.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted with conditions including police station attendance, non-intimidation of witnesses, and travel restrictions.

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2014 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.217 OF 2014 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.372 OF 2014

¶4

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari .. Applicant. V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶6

AND

¶7

Arati Abhijit Choudhari .. intervener.

¶8

Mr.Umesh Mankapure, for the Applicant. Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State. Mr. Vikas Kolekar, for the intervener and for applicant in Application No.217 of 2014. Ms. S.G. Duthade, Police Sub Inspector, Vishram Baug, Police Station, Sangli.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE : 14^th July, 2014

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicant accused is prosecuted

¶13

for the offences under Sections 498A, 323,

¶14

506, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal

¶15

Code, registered under C.R.No.32 of 2014,

¶16

Page No.1 of 7

¶17

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶18

registered with Sangli City Police Station,

¶19

Sangli. The first informant wife gave report on 21^st February against her husband applicant accused. The marriage between the applicant

¶20

and the first informant took place on 17^th

¶21

October, 2006. After marriage, she started residing with her husband. The in-laws of the complainant, her husband and relatives of

¶22

husband used to taunt her and abuse. They used

¶23

to demand money. On 28^th July, 2009, the son was delivered to the applicant. The applicant accused thereafter was transferred at Surat, Gujarat. Thereafter the applicant accused

¶24

started demanding money and used to harass her and told her to bring money from her parents.

¶25

She has communicated about harassment to her parents. The applicant accused in the month of January,2009 assaulted her and due to assault

¶26

she suffered severe injury to her right ear

¶27

which affected her hearing capacity. She got treated in the Government Hospital and

¶28

Page No.2 of 7

¶29

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶30

thereafter, she gave complaint.

¶31

The learned counsel for the applicant accused has submitted that the applicant accused is innocent. He never demanded any money. He did not illtreat her. He submitted that on 28^th January, 2014, the complainant has lodged complaint under Domestic violence Act against applicant and thereafter within one month, this case of cruelty has been lodged. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicant is working at Surat and he is ready to co-operate the police and shall abide by the terms and conditions that may be imposed by this Court.

¶32

The application is opposed by the learned APP and the learned counsel for the

¶33

intervener. She produced medical certificate of the complainant. She also produced entries

¶34

of the bank statement of the mother of

¶35

complainant showing that on 6.5.2013, an amount of Rs.50,000/- was withdrawn from the

¶36

Page No.3 of 7

¶37

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶38

account of mother of complainant and was

¶39

deposited in the account of the applicant

¶40

accused on 7.5.2013. Similarly the learned counsel for the intervener has submitted that

¶41

the mother of the complainant has borrowed an

¶42

amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her son-in-law

¶43

and the entry dated 19.5.2013 of the bank statement of son-on-law discloses that an

¶44

amount of Rs.5 lacs was withdrawn from the

¶45

account of son-in-law and was paid to applicant. Thereafter the applicant accused

¶46

has purchased flat at Surat for Rs.10 lacs.

¶47

The learned counsel for the intervener submits that there was consistent demand of money and

¶48

harassment from applicant and therefore,

¶49

application be rejected.

¶50

account of the mother to the account of the

¶51

applicant accused. So also the submission of

¶52

the learned counsel for the intervener and the

¶53

Page No.4 of 7

¶54

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶55

prosecutor are substantiated from the copies

¶56

bank statement that an amount of Rs.5 lacs was

¶57

withdrawn by the son-in-law to pay the said amount to the applicant accused. It is alleged

¶58

that the applicant accused has assaulted the complainant and thereafter she lost her hearing capacity or right ear. On perusal of

¶59

the medical certificate of the Government Hospital, Sangli dated 6.1.2014, it shows that

¶60

there is injury to right ear of the complainant and she was advised to perform Pure Tone Audiometry Certificate dated 11.7.2014, issued by Ali Awar Jung National institute for Hearing Handicapped. It shows that after conducting Pure Tone Audiometry-,

¶61

on 11.7.2014, it was found that she does not

¶62

have any hearing loss in any of the year.

¶63

The proceedings under Domestic Violence Act,

¶64

is also pending. The applicant has also filed

¶65

Application for restitution of conjugal rights before Civil Judge Senior Division, Sangli. In

¶66

Page No.5 of 7

¶67

4 ABA 372 OF 2014

¶68

view of this I grant pre-arrest bail to applicant on the following grounds;-

¶69

Order

¶70

i) In the event of applicant’s arrest in above crime, he be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/-with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.20/-,

¶71

ii) The applicant shall attend the concerned police station on every Sunday between11.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet.

¶72

iii) The applicant shall not pressurize the complainant or any other witnesses.

¶73

iv) The applicant shall not, directly

¶74

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;

¶75

v) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.

¶76

Page No.6 of 7

¶77

4 ABA 372 OF 2014 5. The application for bail as also application filed by intervener, both are disposed of accordingly.

¶78

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶79

Page No.7 of 7

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhijit Chandrakant Choudhari 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

Datta Bhimrao Tonape Vs the State of Maharashtra

Arun Shankar Mehendale and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Ramchandra Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Nooria Yusuf Haveliwala

Gorakhnath Savlaram Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Aarti Abhijit Choudhari (Intervener) Vs the State of Maharashtra