Allowed

Dilip Jiyalal Nishad v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Nov 2014BA/1313/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail application filed by Dilip Jiyalal Nishad, who was arrested in connection with offences under sections 376, 498(A) and 506(2) IPC read with section 34 of the IPC, and ordered his enlargement on furnishing a personal bond and sureties.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

Dilip Jiyalal Nishad Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

1 16.1313.14 ba

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1313 OF 2014

¶3

Dilip Jiyalal Nishad .....Applicant

¶4

V/s.

¶5

The State of Maharashtra

¶6

....Respondent

¶7

Mr. Vinod Kashid for Applicant Ms. Vira Shinde APP for the State.

¶8

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 11, 2014

¶9

PC :

¶10

1. Heard. This is an application under section 439 of Code of Criminal

¶11

Procedure, 1973. Applicant has been arrested on 09/01/2014 in crime no. 10/2014 for offence punishable under section 376, 498 (A), 506 (2) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

It is the case of prosecution that the complainant had lodged the F.I.R. with Nirmal Nagar Police Station alleging therein that she was married to Sachin Ganekar on 09/12/2009. Marriage was not consummated on count of impotency of her husband. It is alleged by her that her husband used to force her to have sexual intercourse with other persons i.e. his friends. Applicant

¶13

ism

¶14

2 16.1313.14 ba

¶15

herein happens to be one of the friend of the husband of the complainant. She has given several instances in the F.I.R. wherein she has visited several hotels at the request of her husband and she was ravished by his friends. F.I.R. has been lodged on 09/01/2014. Offences alleged are during the period 09/12/2009 to November 2013. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. Husband of the complainant i.e. Sachin Ganekar has been enlarged on bail by this Court vide Order dated 03/09/2014. At that stage, it was argued on behalf of the husband of the complainant that the husband had seen the complainant in compromising position with third person and there were disputes on the said count. He had summoned 5 of his friends to resolve the dispute between him and his wife and thereafter, she was sent to her maternal house.

¶16

1. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been

¶17

one of the friends of the husband of the complainant who had tried to resolve the dispute between the couple and he has been falsely implicated in the present case.

¶18

ism

¶19

3 16.1313.14 ba

¶20

1. Be that as it may, investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed. Applicant has been in jail for almost 11 months and he deserves to be enlarged on bail.

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

(i) Application is allowed.

¶23

(ii) Applicant be enlarged on bail on furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶24

Application stands disposed of.

¶25

(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

¶26

ism

Dilip Jiyalal Nishad v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Jiyalal Nishad 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

Mohammed Ubedali Matiullah Rahman Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramkishan Hiralal Paliwal @ Ramesh @ Marwadi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nizamul Kajem Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahadeo Govind Jadhav and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mahadeo Govind Jadhav and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Rahul Ramdas Yeole and Ors.