Dismissed

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Jul 2014ABA/719/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench dealt with an anticipatory bail application moved by the mother-in-law of a deceased woman. The applicant was accused of dowry harassment and instigating suicide under sections 304B and 306 IPC. The court, noting prima facie evidence against the applicant based on medical records and statements, rejected the application.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipatory bail was rejected.

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.719.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.719 OF 2014

¶5

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha ... Applicant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.S.S. Thombare for the Applicant Ms.Alpa Javeri, APP, for Respondent – State Mr.P.G. Sarda i/b A.Khamkhedkar for Intervener

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: JULY 8, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Leave to amend. Amendments to be carried out forthwith.

¶13

The application is moved for anticipatory bail as the applicant/accused is prosecuted for the offences punishable under sections 304B, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at C.R. No.164 of 2014 by the Yerwada police station. The father of the deceased woman is the informant. The applicant/accused is the mother in law of the deceased. It is the case of the complainant that the on 13.11.2013, the deceased and one Akshay got married. After marriage, she started residing with her husband. However, within 15 days, she informed her father that her in-laws, her husband had told her to bring Rs.15 lakhs for the purpose of business and as the father expressed his inability to pay

¶14

1 / 3

¶15

aba.719.2014.doc

¶16

this amount, her in-laws started harassing her. Her husband also started ill-treating her. She was abused and there was continuous pressure of demand of money from the in-laws. Her mother in law did not allow her parents to come home. When they came, they were driven out. She was not allowed to contact her parents. She used to complain to her father about the treatment she received and the torture she had undergone. She was not given food. It is the case of the complainant that on 6.4.2014, he phoned his son-in-law, the principal accused, and informed him that his daughter be sent back as her mother was not well. At that time, there was demand of Rs.15 lakhs. On 7.4.2014, the complainant received phone call from the husband that the deceased Snehal was serious and when he reached Sahyadri hospital in Pune, he found that his daughter Snehal was alone in ICU and nobody was with her and she was dead. Thereafter, he lodged the complaint.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the applicant/accused has submitted that the chargesheet is filed and there are two sets of evidence. The neighbours have stated that no such quarrels or fights were observed or heard by them. He further submitted that in the suicide note, which was recovered by the police, the victim has blamed herself and no finger is pointed to the co-accused muchless, the applicant/accused. He submitted that the applicant/accused is a woman. The husband and father in law

¶18

2 / 3

¶19

aba.719.2014.doc

¶20

were arrested and the father in law is on bail. The learned Counsel has submitted that the applicant/accused is ready to cooperate with the police and is to be protected by pre-arrest bail.

¶21

Learned Prosecutor opposed the application. She relied on the statements recorded by the police. She produced the suicide note on record.

¶22

Perused the complaint. The incident has taken place within six months from the marriage. Perused the statements on record and the suicide note. Considering this, prima facie, I am of the view that there is some evidence against the applicant/accused. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the applicant/accused.

¶23

Accordingly, the application is rejected.

¶24

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶25

3 / 3

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Ajay Khedkar @ Sangeeta Mutha 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

Suraj Shivaji Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rakesh Laxman Gaikwad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Madhav Khajanvadkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bapurao Suresh Shendge Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajjan Jaywant Awatade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Namdev Ughade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra