Partly allowed

Sridevi Revappa Umkbarje and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Jul 2014ABA/917/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court rejected anticipatory bail for an accused mother-in-law but granted it to an accused sister-in-law, citing humanitarian grounds due to her infant child, in a dowry death case.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected regarding Sridevi Revappa Umbarje; allowed regarding Supriya Sagar Mhamane on bail with Rs.15,000 bond and conditions.

Sridevi Revappa Umkbarje and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

Sherla V.

¶2

aba.917.2014.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.917 OF 2014

¶5

Sridevi Revappa Umbarje 2) Supriya Sagar Mhamane ... Applicants

¶6

Vs.

¶7

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶8

Mr.Ritesh Thobde for the Applicant Mr.Y.M. Nakhwa, APP, for Respondent – State

¶9

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

¶10

DATE: JULY 23, 2014

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The application is moved for anticipatory bail by the Mother in Law Sridevi Revappa Umbarje and the Sister in law Supriya Sagar Mhamane, as they are prosecuted under sections 498A and 304B of the Indian Penal Code. The informant is the father of the deceased woman Savitri. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Savitri got married on 13.5.2013 with one Kashinath Revappa. At that time, the relatives of the husband demanded Rs.81,000/- dowry and 2½ tolas gold. The informant is poor and, therefore, he could give dowry of Rs.59,000/- and 2½ tolas gold. After marriage, for the first 2 to 3 months, Savitri had god time in the house of her husband. Thereafter, the relatives i.e., the mother in law, sister in law and the husband all started harassing her. They used to

¶13

1 / 4

¶14

aba.917.2014.doc

¶15

abuse and taunt her. She was not given food to eat. She was not allowed to speak with others. She was also not allowed to go to her maiden home. The deceased used to tell her father i.e., the first informant, about the ill treatment given to her. On 3.5.2014, he brought his deceased daughter to his house and thereafter on 29.5.2014, when she went back to her husband’s house, at that time, the father handed over Rs.22,000/- as the balance dowry. Six days thereafter, i.e., on 4.6.2014, he was informed that his daughter had hanged herself to a tree in a field. He accordingly went to the spot and found that she was dead. So, he gave the information against her husband, the present applicants/accused, the mother in law and the sister in law and also the father in law.

¶16

The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused submitted that the allegations made in the first information report are false. There was no ill treatment to the deceased. There is no nexus between the grievances made by the deceased and her decision to commit suicide. He submitted that if at all as per the FIR, if the entire amount of dowry was paid by the father of the deceased on 29.5.2014, then, the reason for harassment did did not exist and there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide on 4.6.2014. He further submitted that the applicant/accused No.2, the sister in law of the deceased is a mother of 2 months old baby and therefore she be granted bail.

¶17

2 / 4

¶18

aba.917.2014.doc

¶19

Learned Prosecutor opposed the application and has submitted that the allegations of dowry and harassment at the hands of the applicants/accused are specific. He submitted that the Investigating Officer is not present.

¶20

The marriage between the deceased and the co-accused husband has taken place on 13.5.2013 and after completion of one year of their marriage, on 4.6.2014, she committed suicide. The allegations, prima facie, disclose that there was harassment and ill-treatment to the deceased. Though as per the contents in the FIR, the amount of dowry was paid, it cannot be said that there was no ill-treatment. The act of illtreatment or harassment cannot be assessed in such a mathematical manner.

¶21

In view of these allegations, I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the mother-in-law Sridevi and accordingly, this application is rejected qua Sridevi. However, I am inclined to grant pre-arrest bail to the sister-inlaw Supriya, mainly on the humanitarian ground that she is a mother of two months old baby.

¶22

3 / 4

¶23

aba.917.2014.doc

¶24

Accordingly, the application is allowed qua the applicant Supriya, on the following terms:

¶25

i) In the event of arrest, the applicant Supriya be enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount;

¶26

ii) The said applicant shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶27

iii) The said applicant shall cooperate with the investigating officer and shall report to the concerned police station, as and when called, till the filing of chargesheet.

¶28

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶29

4 / 4

Sridevi Revappa Umkbarje and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sridevi Revappa Umkbarje 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

Suhasini Nandkumar Borade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Zakir Hussain Babaso Landage Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anant Krishna Misal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naresh Hari Nijai and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hitesh Mahendra Pandit Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Sami Rajjab Ali Vs State of Maharashtra