Allowed

Karan Rajendra Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC14 Jul 2021ABA/555/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application under sections 498A, 406, 323 and 504 IPC read with section 34, the High Court granted bail noting the belated FIR, separation of parties, and allegations primarily against the wider family.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted with direction to execute a bond for Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties and to cooperate with investigation.

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

¶1

 03-aba-555-21.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2021

¶5

Karan Rajendra Gupta.... Applicant
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶6

Mr. R. R. Mishra for Applicant.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent.

¶7

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 14th JULY, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

1.The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No. 61 of 2021 registered at Nayanagar Police Station, on
13/02/2021, under sections 498A, 406, 323 and 504 r/w. 34 of
the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶10

2.Heard Shri. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant
and Smt. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

¶11

3.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is
lodged by applicant’s wife on 13/02/2021. She has stated that, she
got married with the applicant on 26/04/2019 at Miraroad. At the
time of fixing the marriage, the informant’s parents had given
Gokhale1 of 4

¶12

 : 2 : 03-aba-555-21.odt

¶13

Rs. 7,50,000/- to the applicant for purchasing a car. It is alleged
that, after their marriage, she started residing with the applicant
and his family. After marriage, the applicant gave her some pills to
prevent pregnancy. On that ground, there was some marital
discord between the couple. There are other allegations in the
F.I.R. that, the applicant, his parents, sister and sister’s husband
retained stridhan of the informant consisting of gold and silver
ornaments, which the informant had brought with her. There are
allegations that the applicant’s parents and brother in law used to
taunt her. The applicant himself was reminding her that her father
had promised to give him an air conditioner. It is alleged that the
applicant was demanding divorce from her. On 17/01/2020, the
informant went to her parental house. After some days, she called
the applicant and his family requesting them to take her back to
her matrimonial house. However, they refused and thereafter the
informant lodged her F.I.R.

¶14

4.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
informant was residing separately from the applicant from
17/01/2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged after more than a year i.e.

¶15

2 of 4

¶16

 : 3 : 03-aba-555-21.odt

¶17

on 13/02/2021. In the meantime, the applicant had filed a divorce
proceeding in December, 2020. This F.I.R. is lodged as a counter
blast. He submitted that the applicant has attended the police
station and has co-operated with the investigation. All other
accused against whom similar allegations are made are granted
anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

¶18

5.Learned APP opposed this application on the ground
that the Stridhan is retained by the applicant and his family. They
had accepted Rs.7,50,000/- at the time of wedding.

¶19

6.I have considered these submissions. From the perusal
of F.I.R., it is clear that, since 17/01/2020 there was no
cohabitation between the informant and applicant. The main
allegations of harassment are directed against everybody from the
applicant’s family. There is no specific instance of harassment at
the hands of present applicant. There is only vague allegation that
the applicant was making some demands as her father had
promised to give air conditioner to him. The allegation of retaining
Stridhan is directed against all other accused. They are not
restricted to the present applicant. It does appear that the F.I.R. is

¶20

3 of 4

¶21

 : 4 : 03-aba-555-21.odt

¶22

lodged belatedly after a year. It appears to be a matrimonial
dispute between the applicant and informant. In any case,
custodial interrogation of the applicant, in the background of these
general allegations, is not really required. The applicant can be
protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

¶23

7.Hence, the following order :

¶24

ORDER

¶25

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No. 61 of 2021 registered at Nayanagar Police Station, the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶26

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶27

(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶28

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶29

4 of 4

Karan Rajendra Gupta v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karan Rajendra Gupta 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

Nandu Premkumar Raj Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gullu Vali Mohd. Sajida Vs the State of Maharashtra

Prabhakar S/O. Umesh Shettigar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Manisha Mahesh Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Naseem Taswar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Babayya Chandaya Guttedar Vs the State of Maharashtra