Allowed¶30

Samadhan Bapu Payal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC11 Oct 2024ABA/192/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application allowed; Samadhan Bapu Payal v State of Maharashtra; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad; Coram R. M. Joshi (J.), 11 October 2024; Crime No. 0494 of 2024, Kallam Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad; Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 23, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC; harassment for not begetting boy; poisonous pills causing miscarriage on 04/08/2023; FIR delay, report lodged 18/11/2023; sister of informant eloped with applicant; no evidence of gender-based termination; non-cooperation grievance rejected; interim order 13/02/2024; neutral citation 2024:BHC-AUG:24724.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/02/2024. ¶30

Samadhan Bapu Payal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Anticipatory bail granted to the applicant in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/02/2024.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail ought to be granted to the applicant in connection with Crime No. 0494 of 2024 registered at Kallam Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for offences under Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 23, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. +3 more

¶13

Court's answer

This is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail, and the application is allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/02/2024.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

There is delay in lodging the first information report; since the informant herself stated her sister eloped with the applicant, there is a possibility the report was filed for that reason.

¶5

Key takeaways

There is absolutely no evidence on record indicating that the miscarriage was caused by administering poisonous pills.ratio¶5
Nothing on record shows any possibility that the applicant knew the gender of the fetus so as to cause termination of pregnancy.ratio¶5
An investigating agency cannot expect an accused to provide evidence against himself; collecting evidence is the duty of the agency.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory Bail granted - Crime No. 0494 of 2024, Kallam Police Station, Dist. Osmanabad (Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 23, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC). Applicant, husband of the first informant, accused of harassment for not begetting a boy and of administering poisonous pills on 04/08/2023 causing miscarriage. Court held: (i) FIR delayed till 18/11/2023 and informant's younger sister had eloped with the applicant, so report possibly filed for that reason; (ii) absolutely no evidence that miscarriage was caused by poisonous pills; (iii) nothing on record showing applicant could know gender of fetus; (iv) complaint of non-cooperation in investigation baseless - accused cannot be expected to furnish evidence against himself, evidence collection being the Investigating Agency's duty. Application allowed in terms of Court's interim order dated 13/02/2024. Single-judge bench (R. M. Joshi); no precedents cited.

¶1

2024:BHC-AUG:24724

¶2

192.24aba

¶3

(1)

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

909 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2024

¶6

SAMADHAN BAPU PAYAL

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

¶9

Ms Sheetal Vilas Salunke , Advocate for Applicant Mrs D. S. Jape, A.P.P. for Respondents/State

¶10

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.

¶11

DATE : 11th October, 2024

¶12

PER COURT :-

¶13

Applicant seeks anticipatory bail in connection with with Crime No.0494 of 2024 registered with Kallam Police

¶14

Station, Dist. Osmanabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 328, 313, 23, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶15

First informant is the wife of applicant. She claimed

¶16

that, she was married with applicant on 27/05/2016. She has a daughter out of said marriage. It is alleged in the report that her husband and in-laws caused harassment to her for not begetting a

¶17

boy. She further claimed that, she was pregnant on second

¶18

occasion. At that time, her husband told her for miscarriage of

¶19

(2)

¶20

fetus in anticipation that she will again give birth to a girl child, sought termination of pregnancy. It is alleged that, on 04/08/2023, she was administered with some poisonous pills for miscarriage of fetus. She, therefore became unconscious and was hospitalized by her neighbour Kishor Magar. In the Hospital, she found that miscarriage is caused. There is allegation that her husband, without paying bill of the Hospital, went away. It is also stated by the informant in the first information report that her younger sister eloped with the applicant.

¶21

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the alleged incident is of 04/08/2023, whereas report is lodged on 18/11/2023. It is her submission that, there is nothing on record to indicate that fetus was female child. It is her submission that there is a delay in lodging first information report, as such, possibility exists that the same is lodged for the reasons her sister eloped with the applicant.

¶22

Learned APP opposed the application by placing reliance upon statement of Kishor Magar, who is neighbour of the

¶23

192.24aba

¶24

(3)

¶25

informant and has admitted her in the hospital. She also draws attention of this Court to the medical papers, which indicate miscarriage of the informant.

¶26

There is delay in lodging the first information report. It is stated therein that sister of the informant eloped with the applicant. Thus, there is possibility that report is filed for this reason. Apart from this, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that miscarriage was caused on account of administering of poisonous pills. Furthermore, it is nothing on record that there is any possibility that applicant would to know gender of fetus in order to cause termination of pregnancy.

¶27

It is alleged that applicant is not cooperating in the investigation. The report indicates that he appeared before the Investigating Officer. Investigating Agency cannot expect that accused would provide evidence against himself, it is the duty of Agency to collect evidence. The Court therefore finds no substance in the said grievance made by learned APP.

¶28

192.24aba

¶29

(4)

¶30

Hence, this is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, this application is allowed in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 13/02/2024.

¶31

(R. M. JOSHI) Judge

¶32

sjk

Samadhan Bapu Payal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samadhan Bapu Payal v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chandbabu @ Shadab Razak Mukim Shah vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bhogawati Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Shahunagar Thr Trustee S.S. Patil vs Jaysing Gopalrao Jadhav Hujare and Ors.

Farukpasha Bashumiya Shaikh Vs Afroz Mahemud Tamboil and Another

Rushikesh Kailas Vanjari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Nilesh Ashok Aher and Others vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Vijaya Kailas Valvi @ Viajaya Bhimsing Gavit and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another