Allowed

Neelam Vinayak Monde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Mar 2021ABA/489/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two sisters-in-law. They feared arrest for dowry death and cruelty charges. The court found no need for custodial interrogation due to their separate residence and lack of witness pressure evidence, granting bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed with conditional release on executing surety bond and reporting requirements.

Neelam Vinayak Monde and Anr. Vs the State of… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

11- ABA 489 of 2021.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION No. 489 OF 2021

¶4

1. Neelam Vinayak Monde

¶5

2. Priyanka Krishna Jadhav ...Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra...Respondent

¶8

Ms. Manjula Biswas, for the Applicants.
Mr. S. S. Pednekar, APP for Respondent-State.

¶9

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE: 15th MARCH, 2021

¶10

PC :

¶11

.The applicants are apprehending arrest in C.R.No.919/2020

¶12

registered with Charkop Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai for
offence punishable under Sections 306, 498(A), 497, 323, 504 read
with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2. The First Information Report was lodged by the father of the

¶14

Digitally signed by Manish S. Manish S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.17 Thatte 12:07:18 +0530

¶15

deceased on 7th December 2020. According to complainant, the
marriage of the deceased was solemnized on 14th April 2013.
Thereafter, the deceased was residing at her matrimonial home at
Mumbai. In November 2019, the deceased came to know that her

¶16

1 of 4

¶17

Manjusha

¶18

11- ABA 489 of 2021.odt

¶19

husband is having extra marital affair. There was dispute between
them. The deceased was abused and assaulted. The mother-in-law
used to abuse the deceased. In November 2018, the complaint was
lodged with Charkop Police Station. Thereafter, the dispute was
resolved and the deceased had joined matrimonial home.
Subsequently, the deceased had informed the complainant by
telephonic call, that her husband is having extra marital affair and on
questioning she was assaulted and abused. She also informed that
her mother-in-law and sister-in-law Nilam, Priyanka and Nisha used
to taunt her and caused mental torture. On 7th December 2020, the
complainant received call that his daughter has committed suicide.
She was admitted to hospital. She died.

¶20

3. The applicant had preferred an application for anticipatory bail
in Sessions Court which has been rejected. While rejecting, the said
application the learned Sessions Judge has observed that the
prosecution had objected the bail application mainly on the ground
that the deceased had lost her life and the applicants are pressurizing
the informant and other witnesses to withdraw the F.I.R. The
applicants are not entitled for protection of anticipatory bail.

¶21

4. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the

¶22

2 of 4

¶23

Manjusha

¶24

11- ABA 489 of 2021.odt

¶25

applicants are married and residing separately. The allegations are
after thought. The allegations are vague. There was no abatement to
commit suicide. The question of pressurizing the witnesses does not
arise as the applicants are residents of Mumbai and complainant
resides at Raigad.

¶26

5. Learned APP submitted that the application was rejected by
the learned Sessions Judge primarily on the ground, that the
applicants are pressurizing the witnesses. The F.I.R. attributes role to
the applicants.

¶27

6. On perusal of F.I.R., it can be seen that the marriage between
the deceased and the brother of the applicants was performed in
2013. It is alleged that the husband of the deceased was having extra
marital affairs. The allegations against the applicants are that they
used to taunt and cause harassment. The applicants are married
sister-in-law of deceased and they are residing separately.

¶28

7. Considering the factual aspects of this case, the applicants need not be subjected to custodial interrogation.

¶29

8. Hence, the following order.

¶30

3 of 4

¶31

Manjusha

¶32

11- ABA 489 of 2021.odt

¶33

O R D E R

¶34

(i) Anticipatory Bail Application No.489 of 2021, is allowed.

¶35

(ii) In the event of arrest of the applicants in connection with C.R.No.919/2020 registered with Charkop Police Station, Kandivali, Mumbai, the applicants be released on bail on executing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶36

(iii) The applicants shall report investigating officer as and when called for till filing of the chargesheet;

¶37

(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence;

¶38

(v) Anticipatory Bail Application No.489 of 2021, stand disposed of accordingly.

¶39

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶40

4 of 4

¶41

Manjusha

Neelam Vinayak Monde and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Neelam Vinayak Monde 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

Amar Bashir Bashinde Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amit Nana Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra

Y. v. Reddy Vs the State of Maharashtra

Naved Salim Vora Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pinkesh Akhilesh Chaurasiya Vs the State of Maharashtra

Yogesh Harishchandra Sagvekar Vs the State of Maharashtra