Allowed

Kunal Santosh Savale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC7 Jun 2023ABA/354/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge HCB allowed an anticipatory bail application under Sections 323, 498A, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 34 IPC. The court granted bail after observing specific allegations against the in-laws regarding retained stridhan were unsubstantiated against the applicant.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- with one solvent surety and compliance with conditions appearing on record. In case of arrest, he be released on bail.

Kunal Santosh Savale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

aba354.23.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 354 OF 2023

¶5

Kunal S/o Santosh Savale

¶6

Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & another

¶9

Respondents

¶10

Mr. H. D. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant. Mr S. P. Sonpawale, APP for the respondents.

¶11

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 7^th JUNE, 2023.

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

Applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 815/2022 registered with Shahada Police Station, Tq Shahada, Dist. Nndurbar, for offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶14

Informant is the wife of the applicant who has alleged that her marriage was performed with the applicant on 7^th July, 2016 and out of the said wedlock she has begotten a daughter who is aged about 5 years. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, household articles, 10 Tolas gold and amount of Rs. 2,61,000/- was given by way of dowry. It is alleged that for the initial six months after the

¶15

¶16

aba354.23.odt

¶17

marriage, she was treated properly and thereafter she was harassed by the inlaws and applicant. It is alleged that on 11^th May, 2018, she was driven out of the house and on 19^th June, 2022 when she went to the matrimonial home along with her parents, demand of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made and since her parents were unable to pay the said amount, she came back to her paternal home.

¶18

Learned counsel for the applicant states that the inlaws of the informant are released on anticipatory bail and bail application of the applicant is rejected only on the ground that recovery of Stridhan is to be done from him. He further states that the informant had left matrimonial home in the year 2018 and thereafter, notice of cohabitation was sent to her on 29^th June, 2022. However, she neither replied the notice nor resumed cohabitation. It is submitted that only after fling of the petition for divorce in the year 2022, First Information Report has been lodged. According to him, the First Information Report is fled just to counter blast the petition fled by the applicant for divorce.

¶19

Learned APP has opposed the said submission and has referred to the supplementary statement of the informant recorded

¶20

¶21

aba354.23.odt

¶22

on 15^th January, 2023 wherein she has stated that the household articles and gold ornaments given by way of dowry at the time of marriage are with her inlaws. He further pointed out that in the First Information Report itself there is a mention about the applicant herein having kept household articles and gold ornaments of the informant. Thus, according to him, anticipatory bail application was rightly rejected by the Sessions Court and that present application also deserves to be rejected.

¶23

There is no dispute about the fact that informant is not residing at her matrimonial home since May 2018. First Information Report is lodged on 30^th December, 2022 i.e. after the petition has been fled by the applicant seeking divorce. There is material placed on record to show that on 29^th June, 2022, notice was issued by the applicant to the informant calling upon her to resume cohabitation. There is no response given by the informant to the said notice. In the First Information Report, though allegations are made by the informant about harassment, however, said allegations are against applicant and her inlaws also. No specifc statement is made in the First Information Report that Stridhan is kept by the applicant with himself. On the contrary, it is said to have been retained by the

¶24

¶25

aba354.23.odt

¶26

inlaws. In such circumstances, there is no reason or justifcation for refusal of anticipatory bail to the applicant on the basis of pursis fled by the informant to the effect that applicant is possessing said Stridhan. Perusal of police papers shows that even in the supplementary statement there is specifc allegation that the household articles and the ornaments are with inlaws of the informant. In the absence of any specifc allegation against the applicant for retaining Stridhan, he cannot be denied anticipatory bail. The purpose of investigation can be served if the applicant is directed to remain present before the Investigating Offcer and cooperate in the investigation.

¶27

In the result, application is allowed. Hence the following

¶28

order :-

¶29

ORDER

¶30

(i) Application is allowed.

¶31

(ii) In the event of arrest of applicant in connection with Crime No. 815/2022 registered with Shahada Police Station, Tq. Shahada, Dist. Nandurbar, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 498(A), 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, he be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/-

¶32

¶33

aba354.23.odt

¶34

(Rs. Fifteen Thousand only) with one solvent surety in the like amount.

¶35

(iii) He shall attend the concerned police station as and when called by the Investigating Offcer.

¶36

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

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

( R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶40

dyb

Kunal Santosh Savale v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kunal Santosh Savale 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

Shaikh Naim Goru Shaikh Salim Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mahadev Khandu Padale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Gorakshanath Bhausaheb Aadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharat Harishchandra Gadekar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Vijaykumar Vishwanath Kapse Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Kailas Bapurao Shinde Vs the Superintendent of Police, Ahmednagar and Another