Allowed

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC10 Dec 2021ABA/186/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court granted interim protection and continued it on bail conditions. Prosecution opposed but complainant consented upon security provision. Bail was allowed due to close family relations and willingness to secure the alleged value.

What did the court decide?

The interim protection granted on 23.01.2020 is confirmed; applicants granted bail on P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,000 each.

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

11.aba.186-20.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2021.12.10 16:26:58 +0530

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2020

¶6

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and anr. .. Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶7

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.639 OF 2020 IN

¶8

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.186 OF 2020

¶9

Karishma Anil Shinde .. Applicants

¶10

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

¶11

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and anr. .. Applicants vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent

¶12

Mr. Ashish R. Dalvi for the applicants in ABA/186/2020.

¶13

Mr. Ranjit H. Patil i/b. Mr. K. T. Pawar for the applicant in IA/639/2020.

¶14

Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State.

¶15

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 10, 2021

¶16

P.C.:-

¶17

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of an offence punishable under Section 37 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ for short) registered vide C.R.

¶19

No.I-7914 of 2019 with the Kolsewadi Police Station, Kalyan.

¶20

1/5

¶21

11.aba.186-20.doc

¶22

The facts briefy stated are thus :-

¶23

The date of the incident is 22.12.2019. The applicants are the cousin sisters of the complainant. The family members gathered for a ritual of baby shower at the residence of the applicants brother. The complainant realised at around 12.25 a.m. that some gold ornaments and cash amount of Rs.20,000/is missing from her purse. The complaint was lodged on 30.12.2019 against unknown persons under Section 37 9 of IPC. The statement of the daughter of the complainant is recorded on 23.12.2019, which is mentioned in the remand application dated 16.01.2020. According to her, she saw the applicants removing the gold ornaments and cash from the purse of the complainant.

¶24

The applicants and the complainant are cousin sisters and all of them had gathered for a family function at the residence of the applicants brother. Though the incident is of 22.12.2019, the FIR is lodged on 30.12.2019. Even though it is stated that daughter of the complainant had seen the applicants removed the gold ornaments and cash which statement was recorded on 23.12.2019, in the FIR lodged on 30.12.2019 the same is registered against unknown persons.

¶25

By an order dated 23.01.2020, this Court had granted interim protection to the applicants. The applicants were directed

¶26

2/5

¶27

11.aba.186-20.doc

¶28

to report the concerned Police Station as and when called. There is nothing on record to indicate that the applicants did not co-operate with the investigation. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are willing to co-operate with the investigation.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicants, on instructions, further submitted that to show the bonafdes of the applicants, they are wiling to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs which is stated to be approximate value of the gold ornaments stolen.

¶30

Learned APP opposed the application.

¶31

Learned counsel for the complainant though initially resisted the application, however, on instructions, submitted that in view of the close family relations which the parties have, the complainant would be satisfed if the value of the gold ornaments is secured.

¶32

Considering the delay in lodging the FIR that too against the unknown persons, and in view the reasonable stand taken by the complainant to the applicants showing their willingness to secure the amount, in my opinion, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required and interest of justice would be served if the applicants are directed to co-operate with the investigation and report to the Investigating Ofcer as and when called.

¶33

3/5

¶34

11.aba.186-20.doc

¶35

Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that they are facing fnancial difculties on account of ill health of a family member, hence seek eight weeks time to deposit the amount of Rs.2 lakhs in the trial Court. The request made is reasonable and not seriously opposed by learned counsel for the complainant.

¶36

Hence, the following order :-

¶37

O R D E R

¶38

(i) The interim protection granted by this Court on 23.01.2020 stands confrmed.

¶39

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants in C.R. No.I7914 of 2019 registered with Kolsewadi Police Station, they shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the like sum.

¶40

(iii) The statement made on behalf of the applicants that they will deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs in the trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today is accepted as an undertaking to this Court. The said deposit shall abide by the decision of the trial Court.

¶41

(iv) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Ofcer on 21.12.2021 and 22.12.2021 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called.

¶42

(v) The applicants to co-operate with the investigation.

¶43

4/5

¶44

11.aba.186-20.doc

¶45

(vi) The applicants shall furnish the particulars of his place of residence and contact details to the Investigating Ofcer of the Police Station concerned within seven days from today.

¶46

(vii) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to infuence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person concerned with the case.

¶47

The Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of.

¶48

In view of the disposal of the anticipatory bail application, nothing survives for consideration in the Interim Application. The Interim Application is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Liberty to apply.

¶50

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶51

5/5

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenakshi Umesh Tawade and Anr. 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

Deepak Dattaram Kandalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anmol Kaljeet Singh @ Anmol Kawaljeet Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sou. Narmada Dada Bandgar and Anr. Vs Smt. Sadhana Patlu Bandgar and Ors.

Sachin Shivram Kumbhar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Balu Kamthe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vishnu Pandurang Dalvi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra