Allowed

Suraj Laxmanrao Dapke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC9 Jun 2023ABA/257/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Single Judge allowed anticipatory bail for Suraj Dapke accused under domestic violence and cruelty sections. Conditions included police attendance and non-contact with witnesses.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; accused released on bail with PR bond of Rs. 15,000/-, one surety, weekly police station attendance, and restrictions on contacting witnesses.

Suraj Laxmanrao Dapke Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

aba257.23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2023

¶5

Suraj s/o Laxmanrao Dapke

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. S. R. Bagal, Advocate holding for Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for the State. Mr. S. K. Mahapati, Advocate for the informant.

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 9^th JUNE, 2023.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 040/2023 registered with Kalamnuri Police Station, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Informant, wife of the applicant, has lodged First Information Report with the police stating that on 28^th July, 2021 she was married to the applicant and thereafter they started cohabitation at Latur. It is alleged that after about one and half month of the

¶15

¶16

aba257.23.odt

¶17

marriage, her husband started demanding sum of Rs.10,00,000/- for medical store. It is also alleged that on 10^th May, 2022, applicant came in drunken state to the house and he abused and assaulted her. At that time, other relatives also came and they had beaten the informant with fsts and kicks. It is also alleged that in the night of 10^th May, 2022, applicant took her to her parental home on who wheeler though the informant was carrying seven months pregnancy. It is stated that since 11^th May, 2022, she is staying with her parents. On 30^th June, 2022, when she was taken to hospital, it was found that there was abortion caused to her.

¶18

Learned counsel for applicant states that the allegations against the applicant are not specifc and there is no averment in the First Information Report for attracting offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary and hence it is a ft case for grant of anticipatory bail.

¶19

Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the said contention. By referring to the certifcate of Doctor, it is stated that there is possibility of causing of mis-carriage due to

¶20

¶21

aba257.23.odt

¶22

the stressful condition of the patient during pregnancy. Relying upon the said opinion as well as referring to the allegations in the First Information Report about informant being physically assaulted by the applicant, it is contended that prima facie, offence punishable under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code is made out. Learned counsel for the informant has drawn attention of the Court to the WhatsApp conversations between informant and applicant which according to him, are the threats given by the applicant to her. On these submissions, application is opposed.

¶23

As far as allegation with regard to alleged demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- is concerned, no custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary. At this stage, the Court is required to see as to whether there is any overtact on the part of the applicant which has lead to causing of mis-carriage of the informant. Even if the statement of informant is accepted that since on 10^th May, 2022 she was beaten with fst and kick blows, miscarriage has occurred on 30^th June,2022 and the doctor has also not opined that the said mis-carriage is result of any physical assault to the informant. Mere opinion of the medical offcer that stress during pregnancy can become a ground for mis-carriage would not be suffcient to attract provisions of Section

¶24

¶25

aba257.23.odt

¶26

313 of the Indian Penal Code. The possibility of mis-carriage for different reasons cannot be ruled out. Suffce it to say that no custodial interrogation of the application is necessary. Imposition of certain conditions on the applicant would meet the purpose of investigating agency.

¶27

In view of above, application is allowed. Hence, the following order :-

¶28

ORDER

¶29

(i) Application is allowed.

¶30

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 040/2023 registered with Kalamnuri Police Station, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶31

(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station once in a week.

¶32

aba257.23.odt

¶33

(iv) He shall not contact the witnesses directly or indirectly.

¶34

(v) He shall not interfere with the evidence in any manner whatsoever.

¶35

(vi) He is further directed to cooperate the investigating agency for further investigation.

dyb

aba257.23.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶40

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1071 OF 2023 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.257 OF 2023

¶41

Komal w/o Suresh Dapke

¶42

Applicant

¶43

Versus

¶44

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶45

Respondents

¶46

Mr. S. K. Mahapati, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. G. L. Deshpande, APP for the State.

¶47

Mr. S. R. Bagal, Advocate holding for Mr. B. N. Gadegaonkar, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

¶48

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 9^th JUNE, 2023.

¶49

PER COURT :

¶50

Application is allowed.

¶51

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶52

dyb

Suraj Laxmanrao Dapke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Laxmanrao Dapke v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Ashok Prabhakar Mitkar Vs Sumesh Sumatilal Katariya

Pravin Babasaheb Andhale Vs the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar and Another

Dnyaneshwar Maruti Gawali and Others Vs the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar and Another

Mahalaxmi W/O. M. Suresh Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rajendra Namdeo Kamble and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajit Bharat Biradar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another