Allowed

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Mar 2021ABA/121/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail was granted to the applicant in C.R. No. 282 of 2019 regarding IPC Section 498-A cognizate offences stating bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one or more sureties and return of the wife to the hospital immediately.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed on P.R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- with sureties and return of wife to hospital immediately.

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband Vs the State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

15- ABA-121-2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 121 OF 2020

¶4

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband … Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sachin H. Deokar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. Veera Shinde, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶8

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 18th MARCH, 2021

¶9

PER COURT:

¶10

1.The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with
C.R.No.282 of 2019, registered with Khandeshwar Police Station,
Navi Mumbai, for the offences punishable under Section498-A, 323,
504 and 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code(“IPC”, for short).
First Information Report (“FIR”, for short) was lodged on 12th
December, 2019.

¶11

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.2015:29:00 +0530

¶12

2.The marriage between the applicant and the victim was
solemnized in 2008. There are two issues out of the wedlock. Both
are daughters. It is alleged that the applicant was neglecting his
wife and she was subjected to harassment. The applicant’s wife is

¶13

1 of 3

¶14

Sajakali Jamadar

¶15

15- ABA-121-2020.doc

¶16

ailing and she was hospitalized. Applicant had refused to pay the
hospital bill to the tune of Rs.70,000/-. It is alleged that the wife of
the applicant is required to spent huge amount for undergoing
treatment.

¶17

3.The applicant was granted interim protection vide order
dated 16th January, 2020. The counsel for the applicant submitted at
that time that the applicant is willing to pay an amount of
Rs. 70,000/- towards the expenses of medical treatment. The said
fact is recorded in the order dated 16th January, 2020. It is submitted
that the applicant was willing to deposit the said amount by way of
Demand Draft. However, the said amount was not accepted by the
complainant. In these circumstance, interim protection granted by
this Court can be confirmed. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.121 of 2020is allowed;
(ii)The interim order dated 16th January, 2020 is hereby
confirmed.

¶20

(iii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with
in C.R.No.282 of 2019, registered with Khandeshwar Police
Station, Navi Mumbai, the applicant be released on bail on
furnishing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount;

¶21

2 of 3

¶22

Sajakali Jamadar

¶23

15- ABA-121-2020.doc

¶24

(iv) The applicant shall attend the investigating officer as and when called for till filing of charge-sheet.

¶25

(v)Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of
accordingly.

¶26

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶27

3 of 3

¶28

Sajakali Jamadar

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh Hari Tarkasband 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

Ganesh Ramesh Zende Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jyoti Nilesh Shinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Devendra Upadhayay Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dhwanish S/O Arvindbhai Shah Vs the State of Maharashtra

Hussein Muzafar Rajani Vs the State of Maharashtra

Abhilash Nayar Vs the State of Maharashtra