Allowed

Sunanda Shamrao More and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC21 Oct 2021ABA/2140/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed anticipatory bail application by applicants apprehending arrest under Sections 306, 498A, and 34 IPC following the suicide of a married daughter. The court found prima facie missing ingredients for abetment and held that custodial interrogation was not warranted.

What did the court decide?

Interim protection granted by this Court on 15th September 2021 is confirmed and made absolute.

Sunanda Shamrao More and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

16-ABA-2140-2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.2140 OF 2021

¶5

SUNANDA SHAMRAO MORE AND ANR.)...APPLICANTS

¶6

V/s.

¶7

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶8

)...RESPONDENT

¶9

Mr.Sagar Kasar a/w. Mr.Sachin Patil a/w. Mr.Dnyaneshwar
Jaibhave, Advocate for the Applicants.

¶10

Smt.Anamika Malhotra, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶11

CORAM: V. G. BISHT, J.
DATE: 21st OCTOBER 2021

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1The present application has been moved by the

¶14

applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
apprehending arrest under Sections 306, 498A read with 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) registered vide Crime No.379 of
2021 with Police Station Malshiras.

¶15

AVK 1/4

¶16

16-ABA-2140-2021.doc

¶17

2The informant is brother of Puja More (since

¶18

deceased) who was married to accused Anil Shyamrao More (A-
1). The present applicants are mother-in-law and father-in-law
of the deceased. The prosecution alleges that since three years
prior to the date of the incident, the in-laws of the deceased used
to doubt on her character and also quarrel. On 24th July 2021
the applicant no.2 gave a phone call on the mobile phone of the
informant and informed him that the deceased was giving phone
calls to some unknown persons and her conduct had not
improved. The deceased, ultimately, committed suicide by
hanging on 25th July 2021.

¶19

3Mr.Sagar Kasar, learned counsel for the applicants
submits that the ingredients of Section 306 of the IPC are
missing. The allegations are quite vague and general in nature.
Moreover, having regard to the nature of accusations, there is no
necessity of custodial interrogation. Hence the applicants deserve
to be given the benefit of pre-arrest bail.

¶20

AVK 2/4

¶21

16-ABA-2140-2021.doc

¶22

4Smt.Anamika Malhotra, learned APP, on the other
hand, opposed the submissions by contending that investigation
is in progress and having regard to the conduct of the applicants
which is fairly reflected from the First Information Report (FIR),
they need not be given benefit of pre-arrest bail.

¶23

5I have carefully gone through the contents of the FIR.
Needless to say, the necessary requisites of Section 306 of the IPC
encompass an act of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the
IPC. Prima facie, the ingredients of Section 306 read with 107 of
the IPC are missing from the FIR. For this reason alone, the
present application deserves consideration.

¶24

6Even assuming for the sake of argument that there

¶25

are some ingredients of alleged offences, even then the nature of
prosecution case does not warrant the custodial interrogation of
the applicants. Thus, on both these counts, I am inclined to
allow the application. Hence, the following order :

AVK 3/4

16-ABA-2140-2021.doc

ORDER

i)The application is allowed.

¶30

ii)The interim protection granted by this Court on 15th
September 2021 is confirmed and made absolute.

¶31

iii) The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

 (V. G. BISHT, J.)

¶33

ARTI VILAS KHATATE

¶34

Digitally signed by ARTI VILAS KHATATE Date: 2021.10.21 16:42:34 +0530

¶35

AVK 4/4

Sunanda Shamrao More and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunanda Shamrao More 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

Mangaldas Vitthal Bandal and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Drishya Rajiv Chadha Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dnyaneshwar Shivaji Solankhe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramasubramanian Sankaran and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sachin Anilkumar Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandeep Dattatray Nikam Vs the State of Maharashtra