Allowed

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC3 Feb 2022ABA/236/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges under sections 498-A, 494, 377, 323, 504, and 506 IPC. The court noted the delayed FIR lodging and dismissed the need for custodial interrogation given existing relief under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act. Bail involves a bond of Rs. 30,000.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma Vs State of Maharashtra — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶2

1 / 6

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.236 OF 2022

¶5

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma

¶6

.... Applicant

¶7

 versus

¶8

State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶9

Mr.Kalpesh Patil i/b. Vivek Rane, Advocate for Applicant.

¶10

• Smt. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶11

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 03rd FEBRUARY, 2022
 (through video conferencing)

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶14

with C.R.No.822/2021, dated 03/12/2021, registered with

¶15

Navghar Police Station, under sections 498-A, 494, 377, 323,
504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V V NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2022.02.04 14:56:49 +0530

¶17

2. Heard Mr.Kalpesh Patil, learned counsel for the

¶18

Applicant and Smt. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.

¶19

Nesarikar

¶20

2 / 6 06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶21

3. The FIR is lodged by the Applicant’s wife. She has

¶22

stated that at the time of registration of FIR, she was residing
with her parents since about 3 years before that. The informant
got married with the Applicant on 16/05/2011. During
marriage, the informant’s parents had given ornaments to the
informant as Stridhan. The Applicant had a job at Pune and
therefore the informant and the Applicant started residing at
Pune. After a few days the Applicant started making the
demands for money from her parents. He used to beat and
abuse the informant. After the delivery of their first daughter,
the Applicant and his family members did not bother to visit the
informant and her infant daughter for about two years. But after
that, the Applicant sought forgiveness and brought her back for
residing at Rajasthan in their family house. There, the
Applicant’s parents used to instigate the Applicant and he used
to beat and abuse her. There are allegations that the Applicant’s
parents used to taunt and used to demand money from her.
There are allegations that the Applicant was addicted to some
intoxicating substance and in that state he used to have forcible

¶23

3 / 6 06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶24

physical relations with the informant. According to the
informant, her sister-in-law also used to harass her. In-laws had
taken her Stridhan. The informant came to know that the
Applicant had got married second time, though his marriage
with the Applicant was still subsisting. Therefore based on these
allegation, the FIR is lodged.

¶25

4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that
admittedly as mentioned in the FIR, the informant is residing
separately from the Applicant for about three years before
lodging of the FIR. She was residing with her parents. Therefore
there was no immediate grievance made by the informant after
starting residing separately. As far as misappropriation of
Stridhan is concerned, there are general allegations against all
the family members. He further submitted that the incidents as
alleged are quite old and today the custodial interrogation of the
Applicant will not serve any purpose. He submitted that the
informant had initiated proceedings under the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, in the year 2013 itself. It

¶26

4 / 6 06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶27

was dismissed in the year 2018. The Applicant had also initiated
divorce proceedings in the year 2013. However, after year 2013,
they resided together for a few years. All this goes to show that
the allegations in the FIR are not true and there were repeated
attempts for peaceful cohabitation.

¶28

5. Learned APP opposed this application and she
emphasized that the Applicant had got married second time,
though his marriage with the informant is still in subsisting.

¶29

6. I have considered these submissions. As far as the

¶30

Applicant’s second marriage is concerned, as rightly submitted
by Mr.Patil, the offence u/s 494 of IPC is bailable. Therefore it is
necessary to look at the other allegations concerning the other
offences. There is sufficient substance in the arguments of
Mr.Patil that the informant was residing separately for three
years before lodging the FIR. Therefore obviously the FIR is
lodged much belatedly and no plausible explanation is offered in
the FIR. After all these years and particularly when the alleged
incidents, had allegedly occurred even prior to this, it is difficult

¶31

5 / 6 06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶32

to investigate into those allegations today. Therefore custodial
interrogation of the Applicant will not serve any purpose. As far
allegations of misappropriation of Stridhan are concerned, those
allegations are general in nature and are against all the family
members, who are granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, the
Applicant’s custody is not warranted. Considering all these facts
the Applicant has made out the case for grant of anticipatory
bail.

¶33

7. It is made clear that all the observations are restricted

¶34

to passing of this order and the trial Court shall not be
influenced by any of these observations while deciding the trial.
With these observations, the application is allowed and the
following order is passed:

¶35

O R D E R

¶36

(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.822/2021, dated 03/12/2021, registered
with Navghar Police Station, the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing

¶37

6 / 6 06-ABA-236-22.odt

¶38

PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties
in the like amount.

¶39

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

¶40

(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶41

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravikant Bhagchand Varma v. 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

Abbas Nasrunnah Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Punjab and Maharashtra Co-Operative Bank Ltd. (Pmc Bank) through Its a. K. Dixit Vs Directorate of Enforcement and Anr.

Jeehad Jaffer Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Piyush Parag Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Prakash Ganpat Sankapal Vs State of Maharashtra

Vishwanath Prabhakar Bagul Vs State of Maharashtra