This order grants anticipatory bail to the applicant in a matrimonial dispute involving allegations of cruelty and bigamy. The high court observed the FIR was lodged belatedly and granted bail directing the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.
Director release on bail in case of arrest on furnishing PR bond of Rs.30,000 with sureties.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
07-ABA-254-22.odt
1 / 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.254 OF 2022
Vishwanath Prabhakar Bagul
.... Applicant
versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
Mr.Jayant J. Bardeskar, Advocate for Applicant.Mr.P. H. Gaikwad, APP for the State/Respondent.CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 03rd FEBRUARY, 2022
(through video conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.776/21, dated 13/11/2021, registered withKashimira Police Station, under sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504,
506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr.Jayant J. Bardeskar, learned counsel for the
Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE V NESARIKAR V NESARIKAR Date: 2022.02.05 12:09:12 +0530
Applicant and Mr.P. H. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State.Nesarikar
2 / 6 07-ABA-254-22.odt
3. The FIR is lodged by the Applicant’s wife. She has
stated that she got married with the Applicant on 07/05/2009.
After her marriage, the Applicant and the informant started
residing at Pachod in the house of the Applicant’s elder brother.
After about 8 days from her marriage, the Applicant started
beating and harassing her. She was forced to keep physical
relations with the Applicant. In April 2013, they had their first
daughter. After that, the Applicant and his family members
started harassing her more. It is her case that, in 2014, she had
tried to commit suicide. After that, the Applicant stopped
beating her, but still used to abuse her and used to suspect her
character. The Applicant, the informant and their daughter
started residing separately at Ambad, Jalna. The informant was
working as a teacher in a school and the Applicant was working
as Gramsevak. It is her case that the Applicant used to express
his suspicion about her fictitious relations with the school
authorities and parents of the students. Finally, getting fed up,
the informant left him and started residing separately in the
house of her brother from 08/05/2018. After a few days, she
3 / 6 07-ABA-254-22.odt
went to Miraroad and started residing with her uncle and aunt.
The Applicant used to visit that place also, purportedly to meet
their daughter and then used to raise quarrels with the
informant and used to spread humors in the neighbourhood
about the informant’s character. The informant came to know
that the Applicant had got married on 12/07/2020 inspite of
subsisting marriage with the informant. On this basis, the FIR is
lodged.
4. Learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the
FIR does show that the first informant is residing separately
from the Applicant from 08/05/2018. The FIR is lodged on
13/11/2021. During all these years she had not expressed her
grievance before any forum. Therefore the FIR is much belated
and shows a deliberate attempt to implicate the Applicant
falsely. He submitted that the Applicant, on his part, had filed an
application for Restitution of Conjugal Rights on 29/07/2019.
Secondly, in the year 2020, it was decided that they would take
divorce by mutual consent and the Petition was to be filed by
4 / 6 07-ABA-254-22.odt
both the parties, but that Petition was not actually filed. This
also shows that the informant had decided to separate from the
Applicant and there was no cause to make allegations of any
nature which are mentioned in the FIR.
5. Learned APP produced the investigation papers before
me. They contain statements of the informant’s relatives i.e. her
brother, his wife, neighbours, friends etc. They basically support
the version of the informant mentioned in the FIR. There is
some reference to the attempt made by her of committing
suicide in the year 2014. As far as her committing suicide in the
year 2014 is concerned, after that also parties were residing
together. Since May 2018 they started residing separately. The
FIR is lodged after much belated stage. In the meantime, the
Applicant had instituted proceedings for Restitution of Conjugal
Rights. There was an attempt to file Petition for divorce by
mutual consent. The incidents mentioned in the FIR are stale
incidents and after all these years, the custodial interrogation of
the Applicant in the background of this development is not
5 / 6 07-ABA-254-22.odt
necessary. As far as the second marriage of the Applicant is
concerned, the offence u/s 494 of the IPC, as pointed out by
learned counsel for the Applicant, is bailable. Other allegations
are general in nature and are made against family members who
are granted anticipatory bail. In this view of the matter, the
Applicant can also be granted anticipatory bail. It is made clear
that these observations are restricted to passing of this order of
anticipatory bail only and the trial Court shall not be influenced
by these observation while deciding the trial.
6. Hence, the following order :
O R D E R
(i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.776/21, dated 13/11/2021, registered
with Kashimira Police Station, the Applicant is
directed to be released on bail on his furnishing
PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees
Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
07-ABA-254-22.odt
6 / 6
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.(iii)Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in an FIR alleging cruelty and bigamy lodged by the applicant's wife.
Whether the belated filing of the FIR and the existence of restitution proceedings indicate malicious prosecution warranting bail.
Whether the nature of offences under IPC allows for the granting of anticipatory bail in matrimonial disputes.
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Vishwanath Prabhakar Bagul
State of Maharashtra
SARANG V. KOTWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court