Allowed

Nikhil Sakharam Tapal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Sept 2021ABA/1884/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application regarding offences under Section 498A IPC arising from matrimonial discord, the High Court allowed bail, directed the applicant to cooperate with the investigation without custodial interrogation, and fixed dates for appearance before the Investigating Officer.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; applicant released on bail bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties if arrested; directed to appear before IO on 22nd, 23rd, and 24th September 2021 thereafter as called.

Nikhil Sakharam Tapal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 of 2 31.ABA.1884.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1884 OF 2021

¶4

Nikhil Sakharam TapalApplicant

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶7

Mr.Rahul S. Agarwal i/by Adv.Ajinkya Badar for applicant.
Mr.S.R.Agarkar, APP, for State.
API Yogeshkumar Shirsat,Kalwa Police Station, present.

¶8

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶9

DATE :15th September 2021

¶10

PC :

¶11

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.191 of
2021 registered with Kalwa Police Station for offences under
Sections 498A, 406, 323, 494, 504 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

MANISH Digitally signed byMANISH SURESH SURESHTHATTE THATTEDate: 2021.09.1710:02:52 +0530

¶13

2.The FIR was registered on 16th June 2021. The first informant
is the wife of applicant. The complainant has alleged that from 20th
June 2020 to December 2020 the applicant, mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the complainant had subjected her to physical and
mental cruelty. The marriage was performed on 6th May 2013. In
spite of the fact that marriage was in force, the applicant (husband)
had performed second marriage on 22nd June 2020. It is also alleged
that stri-dhan was misappropriated.

¶14

3.The applicant and the co-accused preferred application for
anticipatory bail before Sessions Court. Learned Sessions Judge by
order dated 31st July 2021 allowed the application of co-accused and
the relief was refused to the applicant.

¶15

2 of 2 31.ABA.1884.2021.doc

¶16

4.The dispute arises out of matrimonial discord. The marriage
was performed in 2013. The FIR was registered in 2021. The
applicant has contended in this application that custodial
interrogation is not necessary. There is delay in lodging the FIR.

¶17

5.Learned APP submitted that investigation is in progress. The
co-accused were granted anticipatory bail by Sessions Court.

¶18

6.The FIR refers to the incidents of 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020.
The allegations were attributed to the accused. The co-accuses were
granted anticipatory bail. Section 494 of IPC is bailable. Considering
the factual aspects of the matter, the applicant can be directed to
attend Investigating Officer and co-operate in investigation.
Custodial interrogation is not warranted. Hence, I pass following
order :

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i)Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii)In the event of arrest of applicant in CR No.191 of 2021
registered with Kalwa Police Station, the applicant be released on
bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or
more sureties in the like amount;

¶21

(iii)The applicant shall appear before Investigating Officer on 22nd,
23rd and 24th September 2021 between 11 am and 1 pm and
thereafter as and when called for till filing of charge sheet.

¶22

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶23

MST

Nikhil Sakharam Tapal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Sakharam Tapal 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

Ritu Hitendra Solanki Nee Rity Kanaiyalal Jadhav Vs Hitendra Ashok Solanki and Ors.

Surekha Shivlal Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mamta Bhausaheb Ghevade Vs Bhausaheb Krishna Ghevade and Ors.

Nafisa Naim Akhtar Qureshi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Pralhad Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uliyargoli Nagesh Padmappa Suvarna Vs the State of Maharashtra