Allowed

Suresh Sitaldas Manchundaya v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC8 Feb 2023ABA/310/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an anticipatory bail application filed by a distant relative in a case concerning suicide and alleged cheating. The court noted no allegations against the applicant in the suicide note and allowed bail on the condition that custodial interrogation is not required.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; bail conditioned on furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000 with sureties and appearing to police.

Suresh Sitaldas Manchundaya Vs State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Diksha Rane 908. ABA 310-23.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

DIKSHA DINESH RANE

¶4

Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date: 2023.02.09 20:40:12 +0530

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.310/2023

¶6

SURESH SITALDAS MANCHUNDAYA ..APPLICANT

¶7

VS.

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT

¶9

Adv. Ganesh Gole i/b. Adv. Ateet Shirodkar a/w. Adv. Dadlani for the applicant.

¶10

Ms. P. N. Dabholkar, APP for State.

¶11

API Praveen Ramchandra Ghutugade, Ulhasnagar Police Station.

¶12

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶13

DATE : FEBRUARY 8, 2023.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned

¶16

APP.

¶17

2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail in respect of First Information Report (FIR) No.I-584/2022 registered with the Ulhasnagar Police Station, under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “the IPC”, for short) read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

¶18

3. It is alleged by the complainant who is the father of the deceased Harshita, aged 23 years that Harshita

¶19

1/3

¶20

Diksha Rane 908. ABA 310-23.doc

¶21

committed suicide on December 14, 2022. The suicide note was found wherein she alleged that her fiancee had cheated on her. In the said suicide note there are no allegations against the present applicant. Even in the FIR, it is stated that the present applicant was only present in one of the meeting while discussing the marriage proposal. The applicant is a distant relative of the fiancee of the deceased.

¶22

4. Having regard to the nature of the accusations, the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. The applicant must co-operate with the investigation. Hence the application deserves to be allowed by passing the following order.

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

(a) Application is allowed.

¶25

(b) In the event of arrest in connection with First Information Report (FIR) No.I-584/2022 registered with the Ulhasnagar Police Station, the applicant 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.

¶26

2/3

¶27

Diksha Rane 908. ABA 310-23.doc

¶28

(c) The applicant shall report to the concerned police station on 13^th and 14^th February, 2023, between 11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and thereafter, as and when called.

¶29

(d) 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 Ofocer and shall not tamper with evidence.

¶30

(e) The applicant shall furnish the details of his residential address and phone numbers to the investigating ofocer.

¶31

5. The application is disposed of.

¶32

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶33

3/3

Suresh Sitaldas Manchundaya v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Sitaldas Manchundaya 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

Nilesh @ Gotya Vasant Tandel Vs State of Maharashtra

Vinit Pramod Shukla Alias Virat Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashvini Mukund Birhade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pundlik Rajaram Palshetkar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rahul Mohanrav Makhane Vs State of Maharashtra

Laik Lal Mohammad Khan and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra