Dismissed

Ritu Hitendra Solanki Nee Rity Kanaiyalal Jadhav v. Hitendra Ashok Solanki and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2021APPLN/48/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Crim. App. jurisdiction rejected and disposed of Criminal Application No. 48 of 2018. The applicant, original complainant in a matrimonial case under Sections 498A IPC, sought to challenge the Sessions Court order granting anticipatory bail to the accused. The court found no infirmity in the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The application for revision/rejection of anticipatory bail order was rejected and disposed of.

Ritu Hitendra Solanki Nee Rity Kanaiyalal Jadhav Vs… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Ethape 1 24-Appln-48-2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2018

¶3

Ritu Hitendra Solanki nee Ritu Kanaiyalal Jadhav .. Applicant

¶4

Vs.

¶5

Hitendra Ashok Solanki & Ors. .. Respondents

¶6

…

¶7

Digitally signed by DNYANESHWAR DNYANESHWAR ASHOK ETHAPE ASHOK ETHAPE Date: 2021.09.15 20:45:53 +0530

¶8

Mr.Diwakar Dwivedi a/w Pankaj Dwivedi, Advocate for Applicant. Mr.S.R. Agarkar, A.P.P. for the State-Respondent. PSI Vijay Jadhav Andheri Police Station present.

¶9

…

¶10

CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J. DATE : 14^th SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶11

PC.

¶12

The application is preferred by the original complainant who had lodged the FIR on 17.06.2017 vide C.R. No. 335 of 2017 for the offence under Sections 498A, 406, 313, 323, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2 The respondents had preferred application for anticipatory bail before the Court of Sessions at Dindoshi. The said application was allowed vide order dated 05.08.2017.

¶14

3 The case of the complainant is that after performance of the marriage with accused No.1 She had joined matrimonial home. She was repeatedly harassed. It is also alleged that there

¶15

Ethape 2 24-Appln-48-2018

¶16

was a demand of money from the complainant and for not fulfilling it, she was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Stridhan of complainant was misappropriated by the accused. Her pregnancy was terminated without her consent.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the offence is of serious nature. Specific overt act has been attributed to the respondent/accused. The ornaments belonging to the complainant were misappropriated. The applicant was mentally disturbed on account of cruelty caused to her and hence FIR was lodged in 2017. custodial interrogation of the respondent was required.

¶18

Learned APP has instructions submit that after grant of anticipatory bail, investigation proceeded and on completing investigation charge-sheet is filed. Charge has been framed against the accused.

¶19

The tenor of the FIR indicates that, there were dispute between the parties on account of matrimonial discord. Incident of termination of pregnancy has allegedly occurred in 2015. The FIR was lodged on 17.06.2017. I have perused the impugned order dated 05.08.2017. Learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration the factual aspects and by assigning reasons the application for anticipatory bail was allowed. It is also pertinent to note that the charge-sheet is filed. Charge is framed. There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶20

Ethape 3 24-Appln-48-2018

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Criminal Application No.48 of 2018 is rejected and stand

¶23

disposed of.

¶24

(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)

Ritu Hitendra Solanki Nee Rity Kanaiyalal Jadhav v. Hitendra Ashok Solanki and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritu Hitendra Solanki Nee Rity Kanaiyalal Jadhav v. Hitendra Ashok Solanki and Ors.

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

Anjana Muni Prasad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Rajesh Kanaiya Gosai @ Kalal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sajid Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra

Surekha Shivlal Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mamta Bhausaheb Ghevade Vs Bhausaheb Krishna Ghevade and Ors.

Madhav Krishna Vasave Vs the State of Maharashtra