Allowed

Upendra Shatrughna Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC11 Mar 2021ABA/605/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an anticipatory bail application, the court allowed bail to the applicant, who is the husband of the complainant accused of offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 500, and 34 of the IPC. The court noted the applicant had lodged a prior complaint and filed a divorce petition. Bail was granted on execution of a PR bond with sureties, subject to reporting to the IO and not leaving India.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail allowed; on arrest, release on PR bond of Rs. 25,000 with sureties; report IO between 11 am and 1 pm on specified dates; permission required to leave India.

Upendra Shatrughna Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1 of 3 16.ABA.605.2021.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.605 OF 2021

¶4

Upendra Shatrughna SinghApplicant
 versus
The State of MaharashtraRespondent

¶5

Ms.Sandhya Nanavare for applicant.
Ms.M.R.Tidke, APP, for State.

¶6

CORAM :PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶7

DATE : 11th March 2021

¶8

PC :

¶9

1.This is an application for anticipatory bail in CR No.35 of 2021
registered with Kapurbawdi Police Station for offences under
Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 500, 34 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR
was lodged on 4th February 2021.

¶10

2.The applicant is the husband of complainant. It is alleged that
the complainant’s marriage with applicant was solemnized in 2019.
She was harassed by accused. Demand of Rs.50 lakh was made on
7th January 2020. Her ornaments were misappropriated by the
accused. On 21st February 2020 the complainant went to her
parental home. Thereafter she was mentally tortured. In March-
2020 she was thrown out of matrimonial house. The FIR was lodged
on 4th February 2020.

¶11

Digitally signed by Manish Manish S. Thatte S. Thatte Date: 2021.03.1513:48:51 +0530

¶12

3.The applicant and the co-accused preferred application for
anticipatory bail before Sessions Court. Relief was not granted to the
applicant, however, the parents and brother of applicant were
granted anticipatory bail.

¶13

2 of 3 16.ABA.605.2021.doc

¶14

4.The contention of the applicant is that the FIR is false. The
applicant had noted the objectionable behaviour of the complainant.
He also noticed her text messages sent to some person. On 20th
February 2020 the applicant had lodged complaint to Police about
the conduct of complainant. The applicant had also filed petition for
divorce before Family Court at Thane on 18th January 2020. In the
divorce petition the applicant had stated that her belonging which
are locked in bag are taken away by her. It is stated that there is no
misappropriation of ornaments of the complainant by the applicants.

¶15

5.Learned APP stated that investigation is in progress. Role has
been attributed against applicant in the FIR.

¶16

6.I have perused the FIR and other documents annexed to this
application. As stated above, the applicant had lodged the complaint
prior in point of time. He has also filed divorce petition before
registration of FIR which is pending in Family Court. Considering
the nature of allegations, custodial interrogation of the applicant is
not necessary. Hence, I pass following order :

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(i)Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed and disposed of;
(ii)In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with CR No.
35 of 2021 registered with Kapurbawdi Police Station, the applicant
be released on bail on his executing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶19

(iii)The applicant shall report Investigating Officer on 17th, 18th
March 2021 between 11 am and 1 pm and thereafter as and when
called for till filing of charge sheet;

¶20

3 of 3 16.ABA.605.2021.doc

¶21

(iv)The applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of
Court.

¶22

7. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or e-mail of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶23

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

¶24

MST

Upendra Shatrughna Singh v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Upendra Shatrughna Singh 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

Sudhakar Shiva and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Raju Shantaram Chopadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sakib @ Salman Akhtar Ansari Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rehana Mijanur Gazi @ Priya Prashant Behera Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Sheshrao Gawande Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mohd. Inam Sukhrullah Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra