Allowed

Rahul Mohan Bangar v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Dec 2020ABA/879/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted preemptive bail to Rahul Mohan Bangar in a relationship dispute case involving a false alarm of physical hulming. The judge directed bail on execution of a Rs. 25,000 bond with sureties, imposing conditions to prevent tampering and ensure cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

The applicant is released on bail on execution of a P.R. bond to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and provision of one or two sureties of the like amount.

Rahul Mohan Bangar Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

15 ABA-879.20.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.879 OF 2020

¶3

.. Rahul Mohan Bangar Applicant

¶4

Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶5

Ms. Vijayalaxmi Khopade for the Applicant.

¶6

Mr. S.V. Gavand, A.P.P. for the State.

¶7

CORAM : SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶8

DATED : 15^TH DECEMBER, 2020.

¶9

P.C:-

¶10

The registration of C.R. No.565 of 2020 with Rajgad Police Station, Pune, prima facie is a case of relationship gone sour. The prosecutrix is aged 20 years and the Applicant is aged 22 years. They became acquainted with each other in October, 2019 through some common friend. The acquaintance got converted into friendship and the friendship further advanced to proximity of meeting each other at isolated places. The prosecutrix has alleged that at the say of the Applicant, she has visited Ahmednagar on her two wheeler and accompanied him in a lodge. She alleged that on the pretext that he is going to marry her, he established physical AJN

¶11

2/3 15 ABA-879.20.doc

¶12

relationship with her on 18/01/2020 and further on 19/01/2020. Thereafter, he introduced her to a person for securing a job and also secured a room for her in the Girls Hostel. However, in the month of February, 2020, he suspected that she was going close to the owner of the company where she was working. This was the point when the relationship started going haywire. He was suspecting her and he wanted to cut off relationship with her. Some trivial squabble ensued between the two on 24/02/2020. Thereafter, when the lockdown was announced, she started residing with her friend. She attempted to make phone calls to the Applicant but he did not respond. Ultimately, she approached the Police Station and lodged a complaint on 08/10/2020.

¶13

Both the Applicant and the Complainant are matured persons and from the reading of the FIR, it can be prima facie seen that the relationship was consensual or on the pretext of marriage. The first incident of physical indulgence is alleged to have taken place on 18/01/2020 and the complaint is lodged in the month of October, 2020. The complaint itself reveals that as the Applicant did not respond to the phone calls of the Complainant, she lodged the complaint. In the wake of the allegations levelled, no custodial interrogation of the Applicant is warranted and he is entitled for protection. However, it is made clear that he will, in no way, pressurize the Complainant or tamper with her. Hence the following order:

¶14

AJN

¶15

3/3 15 ABA-879.20.doc

¶16

: O R D E R :

¶17

(a) In the event of arrest, the Applicant – Rahul Mohan Bangar, shall be released on bail in C.R. No.565 of 2020 registered with Rajgad Police Station, District Pune on executing P.R. bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- and furnishing one or two sureties of the like amount.

¶18

(b) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case and shall not tamper with prosecution evidence.

¶19

(c) The Applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and attend to the Police Station as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶20

The Application is allowed in the aforestated terms.

¶21

All parties are directed to act on the downloaded copy of the order supplied by the Advocate under his seal and signature.

¶22

SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

¶23

AJN

Rahul Mohan Bangar v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Mohan Bangar 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

Hanumant Dasharath Raut Vs the State of Maharashtra

Somnath Jalindar Awale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Dhondu Zhore and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Tukaram S/O Atmaram Hatim @ Anand Aatmaram Pradhan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Saiprasad Vasant Shelke Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijay Subhash Nanaware Vs the State of Maharashtra