Partly allowed

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Jul 2014ABA/731/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed anticipatory bail for applicants in ABA No.731 of 2014 facing charges under Sections 498A and 306 IPC regarding a marriage dispute and suicide, imposing standard bail conditions. The court rejected the application in ABA No.732 of 2014 as infertuous.

What did the court decide?

Application No.731 allowed on terms of bail bond, police reporting, and non-interference. Application No.732 rejected.

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

9 ABA 731-G

¶2

vks

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.731 OF 2014

¶4

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar,

¶5

Amar Vilas Kapre,

¶6

Pramod Appaso Matsagar .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶7

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.732 OF 2014

¶8

Kishor Bhagwan Matsagar

¶9

Bhagwan Shankar Matsagar .. Applicants. V/s. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Nagesh Y Chavan, for the Applicants in both applications.

¶11

Ms. Alpa Javeri, APP for the respondent State in Application No.731 of 2014

¶12

Smt. A. A. Mane, APP for the respondent State in Application No.732 of 2014.

¶13

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶14

DATE : 21^st July, 2014.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

These applications are moved for pre-

¶17

arrest bail as the applicants are facing

¶18

charges under Sections 498A, 306, 506 read

¶19

Page No.1 of 6

¶20

9 ABA 731-G

¶21

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code,

¶22

registered under C.R.No.72 of 2014 with Sangli

¶23

Rural Police Station, Sangli. It is the case

¶24

of the prosecution that the deceased was a Doctor who was in love with the applicant

¶25

accused Kishor Matsagar. On 18.4.2004, they

¶26

got married at Narsobachiwadi temple and thereafter the deceased Snehal went to the

¶27

house of the applicant Kishor at Kodoli. She

¶28

stayed there only for four days as all the applicants accused humiliated her that she belongs to lower caste. She was driven out of

¶29

the on 22.04.2014. The applicant Bhagwan, his father Kishor and other applicants Dhanaji Pawar, Amar Kapre and Pramod humiliated her

¶30

and took steps to fix the marriage of applicant Kishor with some other girl and Kishor also got engaged with some other girl.

¶31

The deceased Snehal questioned by emailing him. However, applicant accused Kishor also humiliated her. Thereafter she stayed for 8

¶32

Page No.2 of 6

¶33

9 ABA 731-G

¶34

days at Ambajogai i.e. at her parent's house. On 7^th May, 2014, she had gone to attend her training at Kodoli. On 29^th May, 2014, she hanged herself and committed suicide.

¶35

The learned counsel for the applicants accused has submitted that as per case of the complainant, deceased was driven out of house on 22^nd April,2014. However, she committed suicide a month thereafter i.e. on 29^th May, 2014. Thus, there is no nexus between commission of this suicide and the abetment by these applicants accused. He further submitted

¶36

that the applicants in Application No.731 of 2014, are the distant relatives and they are not concerned with the marriage of applicant

¶37

Kishor and deceased. All the applicants are innocent and therefore, protection be given to them.

¶38

application. She submitted that the incident has taken place as she was was rejected by her

¶39

Page No.3 of 6

¶40

9 ABA 731-G

¶41

husband, in-laws and the family members. Therefore, she committed suicide.

¶42

F.I.R. disclosed that husband Kishor

¶43

and deceased Snehal got married on 18.4.2014. She started residing with her husband,

¶44

however, within four days of after marriage, girl was sent back with humiliation that she belongs to lower caste. It is to be noted that

¶45

the deceased Snehal was a Doctor by

¶46

profession. The deceased has hanged herself on 29.5.2014, this cannot be considered any delay

¶47

as argued by the learned counsel for the

¶48

applicant. Prima facie there is evidence of abetment. The learned counsel for the

¶49

applicants has submitted that the husband Kishor has already been surrendered to the police. Therefore, application as regards to Kishor becomes infurctuous. The applicant

¶50

No.2 Bhagwan in ABA No.732 of 2014 has also humiliated the deceased and therefore, he is

¶51

also not entitled to any protection. The

¶52

Page No.4 of 6

¶53

9 ABA 731-G

¶54

applicants in ABA No.731 of 2014 are not directly attributed to abetment, therefore, Application No.731 of 2014, is allowed on the following terms:

¶55

Order

¶56

i) Application No.732 is rejected. ii) In the event arrest of

¶57

applicants' in ABA No.731 of 2014, in above crime, they be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bonds in the sum of Rs.20,000/- by each of them with one or two sureties in the sum aggregating to Rs.20,000/-by each of them.

¶58

iii) The applicants shall attend the concerned police station on every Thursday between 6.00 p.m. to 7.00 p.m. till filing of the chargesheet. iv) The applicants shall not indulge into any kind of such offence and shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses.

¶59

v) The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case

¶60

Page No.5 of 6

¶61

9 ABA 731-G

¶62

so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶63

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

¶64

The applications are disposed of accordingly.

¶65

(MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶66

Page No.6 of 6

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaji Sadashiv Pawar 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

Eknath Dattu Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Halimabi Hussain Parande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Jalindar More and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bipin Kumar Shashibhushan Choudhari @ Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Aniruddha Vishnu Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishor Bhagwan Matsagar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra