Allowed

Jayaraman Muralidharan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017ABA/1843/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction, allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by Mr. Jayaraman Muralidharan in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and other offences. The Court confirmed ad-interim relief previously granted subject to conditions restraining contact with the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant enlarged on bail by furnishing PR Bond of Rs.15,000/- with one or two sureties; directed not to contact complainant or tamper with evidence.

Jayaraman Muralidharan Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2017)

Mhi

ABA-1843-17.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1843 OF 2017

¶5

Mr. Jayaraman Muralidharan ...Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶6

WITH

¶7

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1156 OF 2017

¶8

Mrs. V. Gayathri .. Intervener In the matter between: Mr. Jayaraman Murlidharan Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra Respondent

¶9

Mr. R.M.Momin i/b. Ms. Sana Mujawar, for the applicant. Mr. Sandesh V. More, for the intervener. Mr. S.H. Yadav, APP, for the State.

¶10

Mr. H.K.Ghadge, API, NRI Sagari Police Station, Navi Mumbai present.

¶11

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.

¶12

DATE : 18^th December, 2017.

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard. This is an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶15

The applicant herein is apprehending his arrest in Crime No.18 of 2017 registered at NRI Police Station under Section 498A, 406, 504, 506, 507, 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Mhi

ABA-1843-17.doc

By an order dated 13.10.2017, the applicant was granted

¶20

interim relief.

¶21

It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant got married to the complainant on 29.8.2003. She is residing away from her husband since 2009. It appears that the first informant has filed a divorce petition on the ground of mental cruelty. it also appears that both the parties were called for conciliation in the Family Court on 3.1.2017. The complainant has also filed proceedings under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2015 in December 2016 and thereafter on 21.1.2017, a first information report was lodged for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is a case of matrimonial dispute.

¶22

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the complainant/wife has not left any stone unturned and has filed proceedings against the applicant. It is also submitted that the provisions of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code are being misused.

¶23

Taking into consideration the facts of the case, this Court is inclined to confirm the ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 13.10.2017.

Mhi

ABA-1843-17.doc

The observations are prima facie in nature and shall not be

¶28

considered for the purpose of quashing of FIR, discharge application or at the time of trial.

¶29

O R D E R

¶30

(i) The application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) In the event of his arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on

¶32

furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with ine or two sureties in the like amount.

¶33

(iii) The applicant shall not send any messages to the complainant or the relatives of the complainant and shall not tamper with evidence.

¶34

The application stands disposed of.

¶35

In view of this, the Intervention Application is allowed and

¶36

disposed of.

¶37

(SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)

Jayaraman Muralidharan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jayaraman Muralidharan 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

Vilas Somnath Thorat and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prashant @ Bala Madhav Mandekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Pandit Shewale and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Alias Suraj Nagu More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Ramgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra