Allowed

Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Feb 2015ABA/43/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court confirmed an ad-interim pre-arrest bail order. It held that mere transfer of money from wife to husband does not constitute entrustment under Section 406 IPC. Bail confirmed subject to periodic attendance. Intervener application disposed.

What did the court decide?

Confirmed ad-interim pre-arrest bail on earlier terms; applicant required to attend alternate Mondays; intervention application disposed.

Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

904_aba_43_2015.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE – CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2015

¶3

Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2015 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.43 OF 2015

¶4

Ms Anuprita Shailesh Bhave … Intervener in the matter between Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave … Applicant Vs The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent

¶5

Mr. R. V. Gupta for the Applicant Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP, for Respondent -State. Mr. S.T. Markandeya for the Intervener, present.

¶6

CORAM: P.D. KODE, J.

¶7

DATED: FEBRUARY 6, 2015.

¶8

P.C:

¶9

For the detailed reasons mentioned in the order dated

¶10

13.1.2015 ad-interim pre-arrest bail has been granted to the Applicant. In pursuant to the notice of the application served the prosecution has filed its say.

¶11

Megha 1 of 3

¶12

904_aba_43_2015.doc

¶13

Learned APP has submitted that since amount of

¶14

Rs.10,13,000/- is yet to be recovered from the Applicant the adinterim pre-arrest bail may not be confirmed. It is his submission that custodial interrogation of the Applicant for recovery of said amount is necessary.

¶15

Perusal of the FIR which has been registered for the offences under sections 406 and 498-A of the IPC and papers of investigation prima facie does not reveal the element of entrustment warranting applicability of section 406. Merely because of amounts are given by wife to husband same by per say would not amount an entrustment.

¶16

Having regard to it, the ad-interim direction given for the reasons recorded in the earlier order deserves to be and accordingly stands confirmed on earlier terms and conditions. It is clarified that it is open for the first informant -wife to take suitable proceedings in accordance with law for recovery of her property.

¶17

Application stands disposed of. However, the Applicant now shall attend on every alternate Monday and so also on the days he would be summoned by the I.O. for the purposes of investigation, until further order.

¶18

Megha 2 of 3

¶19

904_aba_43_2015.doc

¶20

Liberty to the Applicant to apply for modification of

¶21

order annexing a tangible material showing that the Applicant is working for a gain at Aurangabad.

¶22

In view of the disposal of the main application, intervention application also stands disposed of.

¶23

Megha 3 of 3

Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailesh Sudhakar Bhave 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

Nilesh Vasant Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pradeep Laxman Shelke and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunilkumar Badelal Vaishya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Milind Ganpat Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mangal Laxman Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anuprita Shailesh Bhave Vs the State of Maharashtra