Allowed

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Sept 2021ABA/5/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the High Court of Bombay allowed the plea and confirmed an interim protection order. The court noted that the parties had amicably settled the matrimonial dispute with a divorce decree and agreed on quashing the FIR, though lockdown prevented formal initiation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail application allowed; interim order confirmed; release on bail on execution of PR bond with sureties.

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

4.ABA.5.2020.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.5 OF 2020

¶4

Pratik Mukesh PatelRespondent
versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶5

WITH

¶6

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.156 OF 2020

¶7

Beena Prakash PatelIntervenor
In the matter between:
Pratik Mukesh PatelRespondent
versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶8

Mr.Shambhu M. Jha, Advocate for applicant in ABA.
None present for intervenor.
Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for State.

¶9

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

¶10

PC :

¶11

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in connection with
CR No.812 of 2019 registered with Shahupuri Police Station, District
Kolhapur, for offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 354,
354(D), 499 and 500 of Indian Penal Code.

¶12

2.The marriage between the applicant and the complainant is
solemnized on 15th March 2015. Apart from harassment, as alleged
in the FIR, the primary grievance of the complainant is that the
applicant had forwarded objectionable e-mails containing the
messages against the complainant to various persons including the
staff of the complainant and on the e-mail of the company. It is

¶13

2 of 2 4.ABA.5.2020.doc

¶14

alleged that the objectionable photographs were sent to one
Sandipan Chatterjee and others.

¶15

3.The applicant was granted interim protection vide order dated
10-1-2020 which is in operation.

¶16

4.Learned counsel for applicant submitted that the parties have
amicably settled the dispute and decree of divorce has been granted
by Family Court. Learned counsel produced photocopy of the decree
and judgment dated 9-2-2021 which reproduces the consent terms
executed between parties. The consent terms indicate that the
parties had also agreed to initiate proceedings for quashing the FIR.
Learned counsel for applicant submitted that on account of lock lock
down the proceedings could not be initiated.

¶17

5.In the light of the aforesaid factual aspects, interim order
dated 10-1-2020 deserves to be confirmed. Hence I pas following
order :

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of;

¶20

(ii) Interim order dated 10-1-2020 is confirmed;

¶21

(iii)In the event of arrest of applicant in CR No.812 of 2019
registered with Shahupuri Police Station, Kolhapur, the applicant be
released on bail on executing PR bond in the sum of R.25,000/- with
one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶22

(iv) Interim Application is disposed of.

¶23

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶24

MST

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratik S/O Mukesh Patel 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

Pravin @ Pappu Harishchandra Bhoir and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Amit Balu Bhoir Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shridhar Balaram Bhopi Vs the State of Maharashtra

Chhaya Dharmaraj Pacharne Vs the State of Maharashtra

Iqra Adil Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Himanshu Baldev Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra