Allowed

Karan Ajay Mehra v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC23 Sept 2021ABA/1898/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application by a husband facing criminal charges under Sections 377, 498-A, IPC, and POCSO for matrimonial cruelty, assault, and unnatural sexual assault. The High Court, finding the dispute stemmed from matrimonial discord and no immediate necessity for custodial interrogation, allowed the application and granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed. In case of arrest, the applicant to be released on bail by furnishing a P.R. Bond with sureties. Applicant to attend the Investigating Officer for three days.

Karan Ajay Mehra Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1898 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1963 OF 2021

¶4

Karan Ajay Mehra

¶5

… Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶8

Ms. Shalini Sheoron a/w Ms. Maya Updeshi i/by Ms. Sana Mohd.
Yusuf Shaikh, Advocate for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. S. R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶10

Mr. Madan Gupta i/by Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for
Intervenor.

¶11

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶12

PER COURT:

¶13

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in C.R. No.
689 of 2021 registered with Goregaon Police Station, Mumbai for
offences under Sections 498-A, 377, 406, 323, 504 & 506 r/w

¶14

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). The First
Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) was registered on 25th June,
2021.

¶15

2.The complaint is lodged by the wife of the applicant.

¶16

Digitally signed by SAJAKALI SAJAKALI LIYAKAT LIYAKAT JAMADAR JAMADAR Date:2021.09.28 14:18:18 +0530

¶17

The facts enumerated in the FIR mentions that the complainant is

¶18

1 of 6

¶19

Sajakali Jamadar

¶20

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶21

actress by profession. She was acquainted with the applicant in
2007. There was friendship between them. They stayed together
from 2008. The marriage was solemnized on 24th November, 2012.
Thereafter, there were incidents of harassment by the applicant.
The ornaments belonging to the complainant were handed over to
the accused. On 29th January, 2015 the complainant was subjected
to unnatural sex. The applicant suspected her character. On 7th
November, 2020 she was assaulted. on 21st February, 2021 There
was Roka Ceremony of brother-in-law of the complainant. The
applicant misbehaved with her. She was again subjected to
unnatural sex. In March-2021 she found that the applicant was
chatting with one women and subsequently she learnt that he was
having an affair with another lady. The complainant was assaulted
in May – 2021.

¶22

3.The applicant had preferred an application for
anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions. Interim protection
was granted to the applicant by the Sessions Court vide order dated
6th July, 2021. The application was rejected qua the applicant by
order dated 3rd August, 2021. The co-accused were granted relief
under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

¶23

4.Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the

¶24

2 of 6

¶25

Sajakali Jamadar

¶26

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶27

allegations in the complaint are false. The dispute is on account of
matrimonial discord between the parties. The allegations that the
ornaments belonging to the complainant were returned by the
accused are false. The complainant has been taking treatment for
mental illness since long. The differences between both parties
became critical and they could hardly connect with each other
despite living under the same roof. The complainant proposed
certain terms and conditions which were not agreeable to the
applicant. She forwarded E-mail with conditions of settlement on
8th June, 2021. The complainant was well aware of the fact of
pawning the Jewellery as well as money to be returned to the
Jewellers as stated in her E-mail. Both had visited Vasuki Jewellers
for mortgaging and subsequently selling the Jewellery. This fact of
complainant being present and giving her consent for sale and
mortgage and re-modification of Jewellery has been attested by the
Jeweller's in his letter. The amount was transferred by Jewellers
through RTGS to the applicant’s bank account which were
subsequently paid through RTGS in the home loan account of IDBI
Bank Ltd. Reliance is placed on the letter written by Vasuki
Jewellers and receipt of Rs.18,55,310/-. Reliance is also placed on
the details of statements of account of applicant. Amount was
credited into the joint home loan account. The list of Jewellery as

¶28

3 of 6

¶29

Sajakali Jamadar

¶30

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶31

stated in the FIR has been purchased from the account of applicant
as submitted in the statements of account and most of the list of
Jewellery purchased in the name of husband and wife prior to the
date of marriage. The complainant had lodged FIR vide C.R. No.
521 of 2021 against the applicant and thereafter, the present FIR
was registered with Goregaon Police Station. Custodial
interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. The co-accused were
granted anticipatory bail. The applicant and the co-accused have
cooperated with the investigation. There were no allegations of
sexual harassment in the E-mails sent to the applicant on 8th June,
2021. The FIR is after thought. The amount referred to in the FIR
by the complainant is the amount transferred from the
complainant's account, which was subsequently transferred in the
home loan account of IDBI Bank owned jointly by both of them.
The applicant had paid substantial amount to wife and his mother-
in-law. The applicant has also filed the complaint before the Court
of Magistrate which is pending.

¶32

5.Learned APP submitted that the streedhan is not
recovered. Medical examination of the accused was not conducted.
Investigation is in progress.

¶33

6.Learned Advocate for the complainant Mr. Mundargi

¶34

4 of 6

¶35

Sajakali Jamadar

¶36

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶37

submitted that the victim/complainant was subjected to physical
and mental cruelty. There are incidents of assault. The E-mail
referred by learned counsel for the applicant was undisputedly
without prejudice and it was not expected that the allegations
which are subject matter of the FIR would be reflected in the
E-mail which was forwarded by the advocate for the complainant
while the parties were exploring the settlement. The complainant
was assaulted in the past. The FIR was registered. The applicant
has used the word ‘bipolar’ qua the complainant’s illness casually.
The victim was subjected to unnatural sexual assault. She was
subjected to assault, abuses and intimidation. The applicant was
involved in character assassination of the complainant. The
applicant is not entitled for relief under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Pre-
arrest bail can be granted in exceptional circumstance. Applicant do
not deserve such relief.

¶38

7.Undisputedly, the applicant and the complainant are
husband and wife. They were residing together since 2008. The
marriage was solemnized on 24th December, 2012. The FIR is
lodged after a period of about 8 years from the date of marriage
and 13 years from the date of their acquaintance. The case relates
to matrimonial discord between the parties. On factual analysis and
considering submissions of both sides I find that, custodial

¶39

5 of 6

¶40

Sajakali Jamadar

¶41

4-Aba-1898-2021-With-Ia-1963-2021.doc

¶42

interrogation of applicant is not necessary.

¶43

8. Hence, I pass the following order:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1898 of 2021 is
allowed;

¶46

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection
with in C.R. No. 689 of 2021 registered with Goregaon Police
Station, 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;

¶47

(iii)The applicant shall attend the investigating officer on
4th, 5th & 6th October, 2021 between 11.00 a.m. to 1.00 noon
and thereafter as and when called for.

¶48

(iv)Anticipatory Bail Application and Interim Application
stand disposed of accordingly.

¶49

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶50

6 of 6

¶51

Sajakali Jamadar

Karan Ajay Mehra v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Ajay Mehra 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

Mohammad Hussain Yusuf Agarbattiwala and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Dattatray Mestri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manoj Dattatray Mestri Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Captain Rupali Waghmare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashish Balkrishna Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dhanaji Gundu Kasalkar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra