Allowed

Sadanand Babulnath Dixit and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC9 Aug 2021ABA/630/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants pre-arrest anticipatory bail to applicants facing charges under Sections 498-A and others of the IPC. The court confirmed a prior interim order, accepted an undertaking to pay Rs. 1 lakh for returned gold ornaments, and imposed standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted on an executory bond of Rs. 15,000 along with one or two sureties for the same amount, subject to conditions including payment of Rs. 1.00 lakh.

Sadanand Babulnath Dixit and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

ABA 630-18.doc

¶2

DDR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 630 OF 2018

¶5

SADANAND BABULNATH DIXIT & ORS. ..APPLICANTS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶6

Mr. Pravin H. Padave for the applicants.

¶7

Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the State.

¶8

Mr. Shashikant P. Chaudhari (appointed Advocate through Legal Aid Panel) for respondent No.2.

¶9

--------------------- CORAM : M.S.KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : AUGUST 9, 2021

¶11

P.C.:-

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

¶13

The applicant by this application seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R.No.15/2018 registered with Borivali Police Station for the alleged ofences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 354, 323, 504, 506 (2) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

It is the submission of the applicants that they have been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant No.1 is husband of the respondent No.2. The other applicants are in-laws.

¶15

1/4

¶16

ABA 630-18.doc

¶17

I have gone through the First Information Report (FIR). It is alleged that the applicants were harassing the respondent No.2 on account of demand for dowry. There are allegations made against the father-in-law (applicant no.3) and brother-in-law (applicants No.4) under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

It is pointed out by learned counsel for the applicant that ‘Stridhan’ and the gold ornaments have been returned during the pendency of the application. However, it is the objection of the informant that the gold ornaments returned are not of the same value as the one’s which were given at the time of the marriage. According to the respondent No.2, the gold ornaments were of 23 carats but the one’s returned are of 18 carats. Learned counsel for the applicants disputes this position. He submits that to show bonafides of the applicants and on instructions of the applicant No.1 who is present in the Court, the applicant No.1 is willing to pay to the respondent No.2 a sum of Rs.1 lakh which is much more than the diference of value alleged.

¶19

The applicant no.1 undertakes to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh to the respondent no.2 within a period of 8 weeks from today by Demand Draft or Pay Order. The statement is accepted. The compliance report to be submitted.

¶20

2/4

¶21

ABA 630-18.doc

¶22

Considering the nature of the allegations in the FIR, which are general in nature and considering that the parties have already exchanged the gold ornaments and most of items between them, the applicants deserve to be released on prearrest bail. Moreover, the applicants have been protected by the interim order passed by this Court since 3/4/2018. The applicant have complied with the conditions mentioned in the order dated 3/4/2018 and have reported to the police station as directed.

¶23

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 who has been appointed through Legal Aid Panel appeared on behalf of the respondent No.2. I appreciate the assistance rendered by Shri Shashikant Chaudhari appearing on behalf of the respondent no.2.

¶24

The interim order dated 3/4/2018 passed by this Court is confirmed. Hence the following order.

¶25

ORDER

¶26

(I) In the event of the arrest in respect of C.R.No.15/2018 registered with Borivali Police Station, the applicants be enlarged on bail on executing P.R.Bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each, with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶27

3/4

¶28

ABA 630-18.doc

¶29

(II) The applicants to report to the investigating ofcer as and when called.

¶30

(III) The applicants to furnish the details of their telephone/mobile numbers and present residential addresses to the investigating ofcer.

¶31

(IV) The applicants shall not contact, threaten or infuence the respondent No.2 in any manner or tamper with the prosecution witnesses.

¶32

(V) In view of the statement recorded, the amount of Rs.1 lakh will be paid directly to the respondent No.2 within a period of 8 weeks from today by Demand Draft or Pay Order.

¶33

(VI) The anticipatory bail application is disposed of.

¶34

List the application for compliance on 4/10/2021.

¶35

Digitally signed DIKSHA by DIKSHADINESH RANE DINESH Date: 2021.08.09 RANE 19:11:20 +0530

¶36

(M.S. KARNIK, J.)

¶37

4/4

Sadanand Babulnath Dixit and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Babulnath Dixit and Ors. 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

Hema Dinesh Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jagdish Sitaram Shastri Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr Sachin Jawaharlal Chilgar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kavita Mohansingh Kunchikurve Vs the State of Maharashtra

Uday Kumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nikhil Uday Kumar Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra