Allowed

Rohit Bharat Ahuja v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC17 Jan 2023ABA/1040/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge granted anticipatory bail to the applicant facing charges under Sections 377, 498A, 406, 323, and 34 IPC for a matrimonial dispute, imposing conditions including a monetary deposit to the complainant and an appearance date.

What did the court decide?

Released on bail with a PR Bond of Rs. 25,000, conditions to not tamper with evidence, appear at the investigating officer on specified dates, and pay Rs. 5 lakhs to the complainant.

Rohit Bharat Ahuja Vs State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Urmila Ingale

¶2

aba 1040.22.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

Digitally URMILA signed byURMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2023.01.17 18:58:16 +0530

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1040 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1717 OF 2022

¶6

Mr. Rohit Bharat Ahuja ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent

¶7

Mr. Rohan Hogle i/b Mr. Wasim Shaikh, for the Applicant. Ms. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State. Mr. Kuldeep Nikam, for Intervener. PSI-Mr. Manish N. Waghmare, Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar present.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : JANUARY 17, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP.

¶12

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The

¶13

applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.81 of 2022 dated 13/03/2022 registered with Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar for the offence punishable under

¶14

1/4

¶15

Urmila Ingale

¶16

aba 1040.22.doc

¶17

sections 377, 498A, 406, 323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶18

3. The complainant married the applicant on 22/05/2017. In the complaint, it is alleged that the applicant was ill-treating her and on some occasion, had taken money from her as she was working and drawing handsome salary. In the complaint, certain details of the nature of harassment are mentioned. General allegations are made pertaining to the harassment meted out to the applicant. The applicant has filed an affidavit stating that he is willing to deposit a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs without prejudice to his rights and contentions. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions submits that he has no objection if this amount of Rs. 5 lakhs is paid over to the complainant without prejudice to rights and contentions of the applicant. In the event if it is found that the complainant is not entitled to the said amount, the complainant will have to return the said amount. Considering the nature of the allegations which are an outcome of the matrimonial dispute between the applicant

¶19

2/4

¶20

Urmila Ingale

¶21

aba 1040.22.doc

¶22

and the complainant, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Hence, the following order.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(a) In the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with C.R. No. 81 of 2022 dated 13/03/2022 registered with Central Police Station, Ulhasnagar, the applicant- Rohit Bharat Ahuja be released on bail on his furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;

¶25

(b) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with facts of case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court or any Police Officer and should not tamper with evidence;

¶26

(c) The applicant shall attend the invesigating officer on 20^th and 21^st January 2023 between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter as and when called for.

¶27

(d) The applicant shall pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs on or before 01/02/2023 which shall abide by the final outcome of the orders passed by the competent Court.

¶28

3/4

¶29

aba 1040.22.doc

¶30

Urmila Ingale

¶31

(e) Such deposit is without prejudice to the right of the complainant to file proceedings for maintenance or any other matrimonial proceedings before the appropriate Court.

¶32

4. The anticipatory bail application is disposed of. The interim application also stands disposed of.

¶33

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶34

4/4

Rohit Bharat Ahuja v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Bharat Ahuja 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

Momeen Ali MD Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sanjay Hiro Hiranandani Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bashbhaie Ismile Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra

Munaf Malang Patel Vs at the Instance of Senior P.I. Naya Nagar Police Station Thane

Harshad Dinanath Bari Vs State of Maharashtra

Shivraj Irappa Chinchol Vs the State of Maharashtra