Allowed

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Sept 2014ABA/704/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants anticipatory bail to applicants under Section 438 CrPC in a matrimonial dispute involving sections 498A and 323 IPC. The High Court imposed conditions including police station attendance and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Allowing application; enlarging applicants/accused on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs.10,000 each with sureties; conditions of police station attendance and no tampering with evidence.

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

3.ABA704_2014.doc

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 704 OF 2014

¶6

Suresh Tanaji Kadam & Ors. … Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rajeshchandra M. Kanojiya, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for the State.

¶8

Ms. Meghna Gowalani i/b. J. Shekhar & Co., for respondent no. 2.

¶9

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 3^rd September, 2014.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

This Application is moved for anticipatory bail under section 438 of

¶12

the Cr. P.C., as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Shital Kadam, wife of the applicant/accused has given report to Karad Police Station, pursuant to which the FIR was registered at C.R. No. 184/2014 on 27^th May, 2014.

¶13

It is the case of the informant that she got married with the applicant/accused on 29^th November, 2012 at Karad. After marriage she started residing with him, however, the applicant/accused started ill treating her. There was a demand of Rs.2,00,000/ from the applicant/accused and his relatives. The relatives of the 1 of 3

¶14

3.ABA704_2014.doc

¶15

applicant/accused and applicant/accused used to abuse and beat her and as she could not bear it, she left the house. Therefore, she gave the complaint.

¶16

The learned counsel for the applicants/accused submitted the applicant/accused no. 1 is ready for mediation. He further submitted that the applicants/accused are innocent. No money was demanded. She was never illtreated. He relied on the application given by the applicant/accused dated 26^th March, 2013 to the office of Police Commissioner, Thane informing about the behaviour of the informant and the threats given by her of false implication in the case under section 498A.

¶17

In the case under section 498A there is always a word against word evidence. Sometimes the truth can be ascertained on the basis of the circumstances or documents available. However, in the present case, there are allegations against each other. In view of this, prearrest bail is granted to the applicants/accused on the following terms and conditions:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

(i) Application is allowed.

¶20

(ii) In the event of arrest, the applicants/accused be

¶21

enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in a sum of

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

3.ABA704_2014.doc

¶24

Rs.10,000/ each with one or two sureties in the like

¶25

amount.

¶26

(iii) The applicants/accused shall not tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(iv) The applicants/accused shall attend the concerned police station on every Saturday between 7 p.m. to 8 p.m.

¶28

for one month and shall cooperate the investigating officer.

¶29

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶30

3 of 3

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Tanaji Kadam and Ors. 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

Balu Rama Waghmode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sambhaji Biru Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Pandurang Bhatale Vs the State of Mahrarashtra

Ashokkk Govind Rao and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Krishnath Ambekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Maruti Jaywant Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra