Allowed

Vishal Nivrutti Andhale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC25 Jul 2019ABA/695/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay granted pre-arrest bail to an applicant charged with offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 324, and 354 of the IPC. The Court held that custodial interrogation was not warranted based on the prima facie facts presented.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail granted on payment of bond of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties, subject to terms of reporting to IO, non-contact with complainant, and cooperation in trial.

Vishal Nivrutti Andhale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

913.-aba.695.2019.doc

¶2

1/5

¶3

nsc.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.695 OF 2019

¶6

Vishal Nivrutti Andhale ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.Abbas Mookhtiar a/w Mr.V.M.Parkar, for the Applicant.

¶8

Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent No.1 - State.

¶9

Mr.Praveen Rai, for the Respondent No.2.

¶10

PSI – Amol K. Rasal, Bazarpeth Police Station, is present.

¶11

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶12

DATE : 25^th JULY, 2019

¶13

P.C. :

¶14

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶15

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

¶16

connection with C.R. No.I-11 of 2019, registered with the Bazarpeth Police Station, Thane for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

913.-aba.695.2019.doc

¶18

2/5

¶19

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that although initially the applicant had agreed to deposit, without prejudice to his rights and contentions to prove his bonafides, an equivalent amount of the streedhan , due to the medical treatment of his mother, he could not deposit the said amount. As the applicant failed to deposit the said amount, the interim relief granted to him was vacated and the matter was kept today, for hearing the application on merits. Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations as against the applicant are false and baseless. He submitted that although in the FIR it is alleged that the complainant had kept her streedhan with the applicant, in the Domestic Violence (D.V.) proceedings filed in the Court of the learned Magistrate, the column with respect to the list of streedhan articles is left blank nor any details of streedhan are mentioned in the said D.V. proceedings.

¶20

Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.2/Complainant opposed the application. He submitted that the D.V. proceedings are different from the present proceedings i.e. criminal case. He submits that in the FIR the complainant has in detail set out how she was assaulted by the applicant and how her streedhan was taken.

¶21

913.-aba.695.2019.doc

¶22

3/5

¶23

Perused the papers. According to the complainant – Poonam, she and the applicant got married on 5^th March, 2018. She has stated that at the time of the marriage, her father had given an amount of Rs.5,25,000/to the applicant, pursuant to the demand. She has stated that her parents and relatives had also given gold ornaments to her, in her marriage. According to the complainant, soon after marriage, the applicant and his family members started ill-treating and harassing her. She has stated that the applicant even assaulted her. She has stated that on 21^st July, 2018, she was thrown out of the house by the applicant after severally assaulting her with a belt. She has stated that when she attempted to enter the house on 31^st October, 2018, to take back her articles, the applicant again assaulted her. She has set out in detail the allegations as against the applicant as well as the other family members in the complaint dated 17^th January, 2019. From the perusal of the D.V. proceedings filed by the complainant, it appears that there is no reference to the streedhan details in any of the columns of the D.V. application.

¶24

Be that as it may, whether the streedhan was kept by the applicant or is with the complainant, is a matter which will be decided by

¶25

913.-aba.695.2019.doc

¶26

4/5

¶27

the trial Court. In the facts, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not warranted. The application is accordingly allowed and the applicant is granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms and conditions :

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount ;

¶30

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

¶31

charge-sheet;

¶32

(iii) The applicant shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶33

(iv) The applicant shall inform his latest place of residence and mobile contact number and/or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from time to time to the trial Court as well as to the

¶34

913.-aba.695.2019.doc

¶35

5/5

¶36

Investigating Officer of the concerned Police Station, in writing;

¶37

(v) The Applicant shall co-operate in the conduct of the trial and shall attend the trial Court on every date of hearing, unless exempted by the trial Court.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

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

¶41

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Vishal Nivrutti Andhale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishal Nivrutti Andhale 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

Mohammad Kaif Anwarali Ansari Vs Sr. Police Inspector and Anr.

Dhammadip Pralahad Bansode Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sonu Gopal Baikar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramashankar Yadav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sharuk Mehbub Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Sitaram Ghodvinde Vs the State of Maharashtra