Dismissed

Farhana Sajid Patel v. Abedaben Yunus Patel and Ors.

Bombay HC7 Sept 2021APPLN/46/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Judicature at Bombay rejected a criminal application for anticipatory bail in a matrimonial dispute involving IPC offences related to marriage, visa fraud, and misappropriation of ornaments, holding no grounds were made out given accused misconduct.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Application No.46 of 2018 rejected and disposed of. Anticipatory bail application resisted.

Farhana Sajid Patel Vs Abedaben Yunus Patel and Ors. — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

rpa 1 / 3 21 appln 46 2018.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.46 OF 2018

¶4

Mrs.Farhana Sajid Patel .. Applicant Versus Abedaben Yunus Patel and Ors. .. Respondents

¶5

Mr.Sachin B. Thorat, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr.R.M. Pethe, APP for the Respondent – State.

¶6

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

¶7

DATED : SEPTEMBER 7, 2021.

¶8

P.C. :

¶9

The applicant is the original complainant in C.R.No.282 of 2017, registered with Vashi Police Station, for the offences punishable under Sections 49n8–A, 40,, 323, 504, 50, and 34 of Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short). Subsequently, Section 420 was added. First Information Report (“FIR”, for short) was registered on 24^th July, 2017.

¶10

Digitally signed by RAJESHRI RAJESHRI PRAKASH PRAKASH AHER AHER Date: 2021.09.09 18:26:17 +0530

¶11

2 The case of the complainant is that immediately after marriage was solemnized with accused no.1, he went abroad and settled in New Zealand. While proceeding, he had promised the

¶12

rpa 2 / 3 21 appln 46 2018.doc

¶13

complainant that he would make arrangement for visa to enable the complainant to joint him. However, he had not taken any steps in that regard. He has not made himself available for investigation. The ornaments belonging to the complainant were misappropriated by the accused. The Sessions Court ought not to have grant anticipatory bail to respondent nos.1 and 2. The respondents are not attending the trial Court. The proceedings are pending before the Court. Accused have not co-operated in trial. The accused no.1 had initiated divorce proceedings at New Zealand. The age of complainant was around 22 years at the time of marriage. She is being cheated by the accused.

¶14

3 Respondent Nos. and 3 are mother–in–law and sister– in–law of the complainant. Pursuant to registration of the FIR, they had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which has been allowed vide order dated 4^th October, 2017. The application was resisted by the prosecution. it was contented by the prosecution before the Session Court that the informant was deceived that her ornaments were misappropriated. Learned Sessions Judge, while allowing the said application has observed that the allegations are on account of matrimonial dispute. The applicant therein were mother–in–law

¶15

rpa 3 / 3 21 appln 46 2018.doc

¶16

and sister–in–law of the respondent. The application was allowed on certain condition like not to tamper with the evidence and not to threatened the complainant and not to leave the jurisdiction of India without permission of the Court. Thereafter, on completing investigation, charge–sheet has been fled against respondent nos.1 and 2. on completing investigation. Apparently the proceedings are pending before the trial Court. If the respondents are not attending the trial Court proceedings, it is obvious that the Court must have taken appropriate action.

¶17

4 Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, no ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶18

:: O R D E R ::

¶19

(i) Criminal Application No.4, of 2018, is rejected and disposed of accordingly.

¶20

( PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Farhana Sajid Patel v. Abedaben Yunus Patel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Farhana Sajid Patel v. Abedaben Yunus Patel and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Digambar Dehere Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vatan Shivaji Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Devram Gouterna Vs the State of Maharashtra

Amar Ashok Dhivar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Krishna Gamare Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sudhir Krishna Gamare Vs the State of Maharashtra