Allowed

Arun Shankar Mehendale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Jul 2014ABA/680/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC to in-laws accused under Section 498A IPC. The court held that while cruelty existed, the husband and co-accused were primarily responsible for the suicide, absolving the applicants of direct liability.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on furnishing a bond of Rs. 20,000 with one or two sureties and attending the police station on Mondays.

Arun Shankar Mehendale and Anr. Vs the State of… — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

10.ABA680_2014

¶2

Vidya amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 680 OF 2014

¶5

WITH

¶6

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2014

¶7

Arun Shankar Mehendale & Anr. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent And Baburao Hanumantappa Laddhe … Applicant/Intervener

¶8

Mr. Ritesh Thobde, Advocate for the applicants. Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the State.

¶9

Mr. Sanjay D. Thokade, Advocate for the applicant/intervener in Cri. APPP/402/2014

¶10

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 11^th July, 2014.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

Criminal Application No. 402 of 2014 filed by the original complainant for intervention is allowed.

¶13

Criminal Application No. 680 of 2014 is moved by the applicants/accused for anticipatory bail under section 438 of the Cr. P.C. The applicants are the inlaws of the deceased who committed suicide on 25^th April, 2014 in the house at Samarth Nagar. She was married to coaccused on 20^th November, 2013 and she committed suicide within six months from the marriage. The father of the deceased thereafter lodged complaint which is registered at C.R. No. 78/2014 with Akkalkot North Police Station for the offences punishable

¶14

under sections 498A, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

1 Of 3

¶16

10.ABA680_2014

¶17

After marriage, the deceased was harassed by her inlaws and her husband. The complainantfather has mentioned that her husband/co accused was having extramartial relationship with coaccused Alka and he did not end this relationship after their marriage. She was ill treated by all the family members of the husband and she was fed up with her life, therefore, she committed suicide. She was kept in dark about their extramartial affairs. At the time of death she left the suicide note holding her husband and inlaws responsible for her death.

¶18

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that the applicants/accused are inlaws of the deceased. They are old. They are ready to attend the police station and cooperate the police. The main grievance of the deceased was against her husband and co accused Alka.

¶19

Learned APP and learned counsel for the complainant both have relied on the pages in the diary written by the deceased wherein she made various accusations against her husband and inlaws. The learned counsel for the complainant, who is intervener, has pointed out that the applicants/accused used to harass her and she was not given enough food to eat. Learned APP relied on the suicide note and also the writings of the deceased in her diary.

¶20

It is most unfortunate case of suicide. The deceased took the decision to commit suicide within six months from her marriage. On

¶21

2 Of 3

¶22

10.ABA680_2014

¶23

perusal of the pages in the diary, complaint and suicide note, it appears

¶24

that prima facie her husband and coaccused Alka who are having illicit relationship are mainly responsible for her sorrows. She has held applicants/accused guilty mainly for not giving her proper food, so also for not bringing up her husband properly and not teaching him proper values of life. She also held them guilty of keeping her in dark regarding their son's extramartial relationship. Considering these facts, it appears that though there is case of cruelty under section 498A, the applicants/accused may not be directly responsible for the suicide of the deceased. Hence, I am inclined to grant prearrest bail to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

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

¶27

(ii) The applicants/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Monday between 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. till the filing of the charge sheet and shall cooperate the Investigating agency.

¶28

Criminal Application Nos. 680 of 2014 and 402 of 2014 stand disposed of.

¶29

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

3 Of 3

Arun Shankar Mehendale and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Shankar Mehendale and Anr. 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

B.D.Goel,Asstt.Collector of Custom Bombay. Vs Ebrahim Essa Sodha and Anr.

Hiralal Karbhari Sabale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jainarayan Omprakash Agarwal Vs Union of India

Datta Bhimrao Tonape Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amol Ramchandra Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Tatyaba Ghadage Vs the State of Maharashtra