Allowed

Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jan 2023ABA/109/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge granted bail in an anticipatory bail application relating to allegations of matrimonial harassment under Sections 498-A, 504, and 506 IPC. The court held custodial interrogation unnecessary and granted bail subject to bond, reporting, and non-tampering conditions.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on furnishing bonds of Rs.25,000 each with sureties, reporting to police, cooperating with investigation, and refraining from tampering with evidence.

Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe and Ors. Vs State of… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 901. ABA 109-2023.doc

¶2

DIKSHA DINESH RANE

¶3

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2023.01.18 19:47:10 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.109/2023

¶6

MAYURESH DAYANAD KALAMBE AND ORS. ..APPLICANTS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶7

Adv. Vaibhav Punekar for the applicants. Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for State.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : JANUARY 18, 2023.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the State.

¶12

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of First Information Report (FIR) No.0259/2022 registered with Badlapur Police Station, for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter ‘IPC’ for short).

¶13

3. The applicant no.1 is the husband of the first informant and the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are her in-laws. The first informant has filed the FIR dated December 20, 2022. I have gone through the copy of the FIR. The allegations pertain to

¶14

1/3

¶15

Diksha Rane 901. ABA 109-2023.doc

¶16

a matrimonial dispute between the applicant No.1 and the first informant. The allegations are general in nature. It is alleged that the applicants were suspecting the character of the first informant and on that ground they were causing mental harassment to her. Considering the nature of the allegations, in my opinion, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. Hence the following order.

¶17

ORDER

¶18

(a) In the event of arrest of the applicants-Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe, Dayanand Ravindra Kalambe and Sheetal Dayanad Kalambe in connection with FIR No.0259/2022 registered with Badlapur Police Station, the applicants shall be released on bail on their furnishing P. R. bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶19

(b) The applicants shall report to the concerned police station on 21^st and 22^nd January, 2023, between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when called.

¶20

¶21

2/3

¶22

Diksha Rane 901. ABA 109-2023.doc

¶23

(d) The applicants shall furnish the details of their residential addresses and phone numbers to the investigating ofocer.

¶24

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

¶25

4. The application is disposed of.

¶26

3/3

Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mayuresh Dayanad Kalambe and Ors. 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

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

Bhau Baban Ladhane @ Bhau Baban Ladane Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mhd. Faisal Ali Sher Ansari Vs State of Maharashtra

Kisan Maruti Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.