Allowed

Girish Ambadas Motekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 May 2017ABA/622/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single-judge High Court bench granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant in a matrimonial dispute involving alleged offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, and 494 IPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was not necessary and disposed of the anticipatory bail application.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on executing a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with sureties; duty to report to IO; prohibition on tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.

Girish Ambadas Motekar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2017)

21-aba.622.2017

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2017

¶6

Girish Ambadas Motekar	...Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra	...Respondent

¶7

Mr.Vijay Killedar, for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms.S.S.Kaushik, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

WPSI – Ms.H.A.Kalal, Sardar Bazar Police Station, Solapur City.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶11

DATE : 2^nd MAY, 2017

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.P.P.

¶14

By this application, the applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in

¶15

connection with C.R. No. 179 of 2017 registered with the Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 494 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

21-aba.622.2017

¶17

2/3

¶18

According to the complainant, the applicant had married the complainant on 7^th December, 2014 as per Hindu Rites & Rituals, at Tuljapur temple, Bhimashankar. It is further alleged by the complainant that the Applicant did not disclose their marriage to his parents i. e. accused Nos.2 & 3. According to the complainant, sometime in March, 2015 after the Applicant's parents learnt of the marriage, they started abusing her and demanded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as dowry, from the complainant, as a condition to keep marital ties. The complainant has also alleged that the Applicant assaulted her for not paying the said dowry amount. On 31^st March, 2016, the applicant allegedly performed a second marriage, pursuant to which, the aforesaid complainant has been lodged. It is not in dispute that both the complainant and the applicant are adults and are serving in the police department. As far as applicant is concerned, there was no marriage between him and the complainant.

¶19

Considering the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation

¶20

of the applicant is not necessary. Accordingly the application is allowed and the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions :

21-aba.622.2017

3/3

ORDER

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

¶25

(ii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station, as and when called for;

¶26

(iii) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to influence the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶27

The Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms and is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

It is made clear that the observations made herein are prima facie and are confined to this application.

¶29

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

¶30

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

Girish Ambadas Motekar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girish Ambadas Motekar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Mokim Khan and Anr. Vs Ashish Amarchand Firodiya and Anr.

Pralin Shyamkant Baviskar (Mali) Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohammed Hanif Gulam Hussain Pathan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bashir Dilawar Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suyesh Suresh Gade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Govardhan Sarjerao Giranje Vs the State of Maharashtra