Allowed

Santosh Rangnath Sangale v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC12 Jul 2019ABA/696/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted pre-arrest bail to the applicant charges u/s 498-A, 406, 324, and 354 IPC held custodial interrogation warranted due to peculiar facts and issued standard bail conditions including reporting and non-contact terms.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on terms of executing PR bond Rs.20,000 with two sureties, reporting to IO, no contact with complainant/witnesses, and cooperating with investigation.

Santosh Rangnath Sangale Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2019)

915-aba.696.2019.doc

1/3

nsc.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.696 OF 2019

¶6

Santosh Rangnath Sangale ...Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.V.M.Parkar, for the Applicant.

¶8

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

¶9

Ms.P.P.Shinde, A.P.P for the Respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

¶11

DATE : 12^th JULY, 2019

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant.

¶14

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

¶15

connection with C.R. No.I-11 of 2019, registered with the Bazarpeth

¶16

Police Station, Thane for the alleged offences punishable under Section 498-A, 406, 324 and 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

915-aba.696.2019.doc

¶18

2/3

¶19

Perused the papers. The Applicant is the brother-in-law of the complainant – Poonam. The marriage between the complainant and the coaccused – Vishal was arranged by the present applicant. According to the complainant, the applicant made sexual advances towards her. There are several allegations which have been made of ill-treatment and harassment as against all the accused, by the complainant. It appears that D.V. proceedings, have been filed by the complainant in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Thane, as well as a complaint with the Mahila Takrar Nivaran Kaksha.

¶20

Having regard to the peculiar facts, 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 :

¶21

ORDER

¶22

(i) In the event of the arrest, the applicant be enlarged on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount ;

¶23

915-aba.696.2019.doc

¶24

3/3

¶25

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

¶26

charge-sheet;

¶27

(iii) The applicant shall not contact the complainant, witnesses or

¶28

any person concerned with the case.

¶29

(iv) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Agency.

¶30

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

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

Santosh Rangnath Sangale v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Rangnath Sangale 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

Aruna Pranochyar Katare Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Siraj Ahmed Riyaz Ahmed Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashwin Gajanan Tarphe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Santosh Tukaram Kajrolkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajesh Suresh Nishad and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nanso Daniel Nazeque Vs the State of Maharashtra