Allowed

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Aug 2014ABA/570/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge of Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to a husband prosecuted under Section 498A IPC. He is ordered to hand over ornaments and will not pressurize witnesses while being released on bail.

What did the court decide?

Application granted for anticipatory bail with conditions to hand over ornaments, not pressurize witnesses, and seek permission before leaving India.

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vks

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.570 OF 2014

¶3

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne .. Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶4

Mr. M. S. Mohite, i/by Mr. Sachin Gite, for the Applicant.

¶5

Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State. Mr. Prakash Naik i/by Mr. A. R.Kapadnis, for the original complainant.

¶6

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶7

DATE : 8^th August, 2014

¶8

P.C.

¶9

This application is moved for

¶10

anticipatory bail as the applicant husband of the complainant is prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 23, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Gangapur Police Station, under C.R.No.I-69 of 2014. It is the case of complainant wife that the she and the applicant got married on 14^th April, 1998. Thereafter she started

¶11

Page No.1 of 4

¶12

7 ABA 570 OF 2014

¶13

residing with him. They have one son of 16

¶14

years old out of their wedlock. It is the case

¶15

of complainant that her husband used to always

¶16

beat her and demand money from her and her

¶17

parents. Even though she was abused and illtreated time and again, she was hopeful

¶18

that the behaviours of the applicant and the

¶19

mother-in-law would change and therefore, she tolerated the illtreatment. On 13.4.2014, when

¶20

she was at home, her husband was drunk. He

¶21

picked up quarrel on petty issue and thereafter he pulled her to the balcony and

¶22

tried to throw her out of the balcony. Their

¶23

son intervened and saved the mother. She was admitted in the hospital. She left the house

¶24

on the same day at 3.00 a.m. She is Doctor by profession. Hence this complaint.

¶25

The learned counsel for the applicant

¶26

submits that the parties have tried to settle

¶27

through mediation, but it failed. He submits

¶28

that parties are making allegations and

¶29

Page No.2 of 4

¶30

7 ABA 570 OF 2014

¶31

counter allegations against each other. The learned counsel on instructions makes a

¶32

statement that the applicant is ready to hand over all the ornaments of the first informant

¶33

wife on Sunday in the presence of

¶34

Investigation Officer at police station. The statement is accepted.

¶35

going through the statement of son, there is

¶36

prima facie evidence that the applicant accused has committed offence under Section

¶37

498A of the IPC. However, as the applicant

¶38

accused is ready to hand over ornaments, custodial interrogation of the applicant is

¶39

not required as the informant and applicant

¶40

have 17 years married life. I grant this application on the following terms and conditions :-

¶41

Order

¶42

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

¶43

Page No.3 of 4

¶44

7 ABA 570 OF 2014

¶45

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

¶46

ii) The applicant shall hand over all the ornaments of the complainant on Sunday 10^th August, 2014 at 11.00 a.m. in presence of police by attending the concerned police station.

¶47

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

¶48

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;

¶49

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

¶50

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶51

Page No.4 of 4

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayant Raosaheb Dhumne 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

Vinayak Krishnat Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogendra Laxminarayan Taparia Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vinayak Krishnat Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kalyan Jangali Torane and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shankar Revansidha Birajdar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Pramod Samant Vs the State of Maharashtra