Allowed

Rajiv Kumar Pal v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC6 Feb 2023ABA/297/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed anticipatory bail for the applicant in connection with offences under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, and 504 read with Section 34 IPC. The court found custodial interrogation unnecessary while imposing standard bail conditions including bond, appearance, and cooperation with investigation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to be released on bail of Rs.25,000 with sureties, cooperate with investigation, and report to police station.

Rajiv Kumar Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

901.aba.297-23.doc

¶2

PMB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.297 OF 2023

¶5

Digitally signed by PRADNYA PRADNYA MAKARAND MAKARAND BHOGALE BHOGALE Date: 2023.02.06 17:09:54 +0530

¶6

Rajiv Kumar Pal ..Applicant VS. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ------------

¶7

None for the Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, APP for the State. Mr. Ganesh Kekan, API, Navghar Police Station is present.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶9

DATE : FEBRUARY 6, 2023

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

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

¶12

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in connection with FIR No.556 of 2022 dated 22/07/2022 registered with Navghar Police Station.

¶13

3. The first informant is the wife of the applicant. The first informant alleged that the marriage took place on 21/11/2021 at their native place in Uttar Pradesh. There are

1/3

901.aba.297-23.doc

PMB

no allegations of dowry demand. However, there are general allegations of ill-treatment against the applicant and other members of the family. The in-laws of the first informant have been granted pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court. It is further alleged that streedhan of Rs.7,48,240/- is lying with the applicant and his parents. So far as streedhan is concerned, it is open for the first informant to initiate proceedings under the relevant laws for recovery.

¶18

4. Considering the nature of the accusations, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The applicant to co-operate with the investigation.

¶19

5. Hence, the following order :-

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

(a) Application is allowed.

¶22

(b) In the event of arrest in connection with FIR No.556 of 2022 registered with Navghar Police Station, the applicant-Rajiv Kumar Pal shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond to the extent of Rs.25,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

2/3

901.aba.297-23.doc

PMB

(d) The applicant to co-operate with the Investigating Officer.

¶28

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

¶29

(f) The applicant shall furnish the details of his residential address and phone number to the investigating officer.

¶30

6. The Anticipatory Bail Application stands disposed of.

¶31

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶32

3/3

Rajiv Kumar Pal v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajiv Kumar Pal v. the 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

Glynis M. Sequeira Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Damodar Mahadu Bandal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Khelan Bhupesh Parmar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Suraj Pandurang Nagargoje Vs State of Maharashtra

Anil Kumari Umesh Paswan Vs State of Maharashtra

Gautam Madan Madrecha Vs State of Maharashtra