Allowed

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Aug 2014ABA/673/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under sections 498A, 323, and 504 r/w. 34 IPC, the Court prima facie found cruelty against the applicant. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not required and granted bail with specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on terms of furnishing PR bond with sureties, non-harassment of complainant, and reporting to police station every Tuesday.

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3.ABA673_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 673 OF 2014 WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 383 OF 2014

¶7

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav … Applicant vs.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent And Sou. Amruta Surjit Pandav … Applicant/Intervener

¶9

Mr. Anand S. Patil, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State.

¶10

Mr. V.V. Purwant i/b. Mr. Akshay P. Shinde, Advocate for the applicant/intervener.

¶11

I.O. Mr. G.M. Palave, P.S.I., Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur.

¶12

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 6^th August, 2014.

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Criminal Application No. 383 of 2014 filed by the original

¶15

complainant for intervention is allowed.

¶16

Criminal Application No. 673 of 2014 is moved for anticipatory

¶17

bail, as the applicant/husband is facing charges under sections 498A, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code in C.R. No. 84/2014 registered with Karveer Police Station, Kolhapur.

¶18

The informant is the wife, who has stated that she got married to the applicant/accused on 1^st March, 2012 and thereafter she started

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

3.ABA673_2014.doc

¶21

residing with the applicant/husband and coaccused, who are relatives of the applicant/husband. It is alleged that after marriage, there was demand of money from the inlaws and husband and as the demand was not fulfilled, they started harassing her physically and mentally. Ultimately, the father of informant paid Rs.2,00,000/ on 30^th March, 2012 and Rs.1,00,000/ on 3^rd April, 2012 to the fatherinlaw. Thereafter also, she was illtreated by the applicant/accused and motherinlaw and out of greed for money, they used to beat and harass her. She was driven out of the house along with small daughter who was 11 months old when the case was registered.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was no demand of money and there is a discrepancy in the reply filed by the informant in the notice sent to him. He submitted that the informant herself has left the house along with the child.

¶23

The learned APP opposed the application and produced the extract of the bank account statement of father and mother of the informant showing withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/ and Rs.1,00,000/ on 30^th March, 2012 and 3^rd April, 2012.

¶24

The learned counsel for the intervener also opposed the Application.

¶25

In support of his submissions, he produced the photograph showing that

¶26

2 of 3

¶27

3.ABA673_2014.doc

¶28

heavy gold ornaments were given to her at the time of engagement and marriage. He also submitted that the informant is compelled to leave the house along with the daughter.

¶29

Perused the FIR and the documents produced. Prima facie the offence of creulty is made out against the applicant/accused. However, I am of the view that his custodial interrogation is not required. Hence, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶30

O R D E R

¶31

(i) In the event of arrest, the applicant/accused be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of Rs.20,000/ with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶32

(ii) The applicant/accused shall not harass or pressurize the complainant.

¶33

(iii) The applicant/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Tuesday between 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the investigating officer.

¶34

The Application stands disposed of on above terms.

¶35

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶36

3 of 3

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Sudhakar Pandav 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

Shankar Navnath Mirgane Vs State of Maharashtra

Harsh Kumar Sharma Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajneet Ramkrishna Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chakradhar Vishwanath Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Shivappa Huchappa Tavanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Annasaheb Madhukar Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra