Allowed

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2017BA/2538/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal jurisdiction bail application where the applicant, arrested for culpable hasty acts relating to a suicide, was granted bail. The court highlighted the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and lack of credible evidence linking the applicant to the incident, deeming further incarceration unwarranted.

What did the court decide?

Enlarged the applicant on bail on furnishing a PR bond of Rs.50,000 with sureties; directed him to report to the police station weekly.

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe Vs the State of Maharashtra — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2017)

rsk

2-BA-2538-17.doc

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.2538 OF 2017

¶6

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe vs. The State of Maharashtra

¶7

..Applicant

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

Mr.Dilip Bodake for the Applicant. Mrs. P. P. Shinde, APP for the Respondent . Mr.Prakash K. Rathod, PSI Karad Taluka Police Station, Satara

¶10

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATE : 18^th December, 2017

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

. Heard. This is an application under section 439 of Cr.P.C. The Applicant herein is arrested on 8/10/2017 in Crime No.429/2017 registered at Karad Taluka Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 306, 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation is completed and charge-sheet is filed on 8/12/2017.

¶13

The facts of the case in the nutshell are as follows:

¶14

On 8/10/2017 one Prakash Jagannath Karande lodged report at the Karad Taluka Police Station alleging therein that his daughter Anjali was married to Shashikant Sambhaji Suryawanshi on 21/1/2016. It is alleged that the present Ap plicant was in love with Anjali. However she did not respond to the same. They had refused the said proposal. The proposal of Shashikant Suryawanshi was brought by the present Applicant and his family members. On 3/2/2016 Anjali and her husband had visited the house of the first informant. She was residing with her parents at that time had disclosed to her parents that the present Applicant was calling her frequently on her cell phone and was soliciting sexual favours from Anjali

rsk

2-BA-2538-17.doc

2/3

on the ground that he was still in love with her. She had also disclosed that her mother-in-law and her husband had learnt about the same and therefore they were harassing and ill-treating her. On 3/2/2016 Anjali had accompanied her husband to her matrimonial house. On 7/2/2016 the first informant had received a phone call from Anjali informing him that the present Applicant continues to harass her on the cell phone. It is alleged that she was fed up with the harassment meted out to her by her husband and therefore on 7/2/2016 she had committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial home. It is alleged that during the period 3/2/2016 to 7/2/2016 deceased Anjali was harassed by the present Applicant and, therefore she had committed suicide.

¶19

It is pertinent to note that the husband of Anjali and other coaccused has been enlarged on bail. The Applicant has been refused bail on the ground that he had contacted Anjali on the phone frequently 4 days prior to the commission of suicide. Moreover at that stage investigation was in progress and therefore the possibility of tampering her evidence could not have been ruled out.

¶20

It is pertinent to note that the first information report is lodged on 8/10/2017 i.e. more than 1 ½ year after commission of suicide by Anjali. There is no plausible explanation for the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. Moreover the first informant claims that Anjali had disclosed to him on 3/2/2016 that she was being harassed by the present Applicant. It is not known as to why no action was taken nor the Applicant was summoned by the parents and given an understanding. At this stage, it cannot be said that the Applicant had facilitated commission of suicide by Anjali. It is in these circumstances that this Court is of the opinion that further incarceration is unwarranted.

rsk

2-BA-2538-17.doc

3/3

The observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature and shall not be considered for quashing of FIR, discharge application or at the time of trial and neither in any civil proceedings such as service, inquiry etc as they are restricted only to an application under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the order:

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The application is allowed.

¶27

Applicant-Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe be enlarged on bail on furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one or more solvent sureties in the like amount.

¶28

Applicant shall report to the concerned Police Station on every Monday between 12.00 noon and 3.00 p.m. and shall co-operate with the investigation to the best of his capacity.

¶29

Application stands disposed of.

¶30

(SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Sarjerao Tadakhe 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

Jayaraman Muralidharan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Suresh Alias Suraj Nagu More Vs the State of Maharashtra

Balasaheb Ramgonda Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra