Allowed

Amit Harilal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024ABA/3663/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal matter under Sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. arising from a domestic relationship, the single-judge court granted anticipatory bail. It held that allegations of sexual offences were made as an afterthought in the context of a matrimonial dispute and found no necessity for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicant directed to be released on bail by furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties.

Amit Harilal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

11-aba-3663-23

¶2

1 of 6

¶3

Gokhale

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 3663 OF 2023

¶6

Amit Harilal Sharma ..Applicant
Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Anr...Respondents

¶8

__________
Mr. Bharat Gadhavi a/w. S. S. Joshi i/b. Surendra U. Sonawane for
Applicant.

¶9

Ms. Pallavi N. Dabholkar, APP for State/Respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 2JANUARY 2024

¶11

PC :

¶12

1.The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶13

with C.R.No.425 of 2023 registered at Kashimira police station, on

¶14

13.06.2023, under sections 376(2)(n), 377, 323 and 504 of the
I.P.C.

¶15

2.Heard Mr. Bharat Gadhavi, learned counsel for the

¶16

Applicant and Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar, learned APP for the State.

¶17

3.The F.I.R. is lodged by the first informant who was 48

¶18

year old lady. She was residing with her son aged 22 years. She
was earlier married to her first husband in 1998. From that

¶19

VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE

¶20

Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2024.01.04 10:25:56 +0530

¶21

2 of 611-aba-3663-23

¶22

wedlock, the son was born. In 2003, she got acquainted with the
present applicant. In 2004, the applicant was removed from his
job. Therefore, at his request, the applicant and his wife were
allowed to stay with the informant’s family. In June 2004, the
applicant started a Biotech company in Mumbai. The informant
was looking after the business of that company and used to earn
handsome profits. In 2006, the applicant told the husband of the
informant that he was having affair with the informant. Therefore,
there was dispute between the informant and her husband. They
started residing separately. The applicant then took the informant
and her son to a rented room in Dahisar. The applicant’s name was
entered in all the important documents of the informant and her
son. The applicant also mentioned his name as the father of the
informant’s son in the official documents. According to the
informant, those documents were false. In August 2006, the
applicant told the informant that they would stay together as
husband and wife.

¶23

4.In the F.I.R., it is further alleged that the applicant used
to abuse her and used to have forcible intercourse and unnatural

¶24

3 of 611-aba-3663-23

¶25

intercourse against her wish. They stayed together at Dahisar from
2006 to 2013 and then they shifted to an ownership flat at
Bhayandar. It is her case that, she had become pregnant on four
occasions and on all those occasions, she underwent abortion. On
these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged.

¶26

5.Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
allegations in the F.I.R. are for the offences U/s.376 and 377 of the
I.P.C. The informant had given her complaint to the Senior
Inspector of Bhayandar police station on 12.03.2022. She had also
given her statement to the protection cell on 16.04.2022. She had
filed a complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act, before the J.M.F.C., Thane. In all of these previous
proceedings, she had not made any allegations regarding sexual
harassment, forcible intercourse or unnatural physical relations.
The dispute mentioned in all these proceedings was purely
matrimonial in nature. He submitted that, none of the ingredients
of those sections are made out and, therefore, the applicant
deserves protection of anticipatory bail.

¶27

4 of 611-aba-3663-23

¶28

6.Learned APP, though opposed this application, fairly
submitted that, as of today, the charge-sheet is filed on
29.12.2023. She produced a copy of the charg-sheet before this
court for perusal. She could not really justify the necessity of
custodial interrogation of the applicant in the background of these
allegations.

¶29

7.I have considered these submissions and I have perused
the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet contains the informant’s
statement in the F.I.R., as well as, her statement recorded U/s.164
of the Cr.P.C. The charge-sheet also contains the statements of her
son, neighbour, other employees etc. Basically, the main statement
which needs to be considered is her own statement. There is no
record to show that the informant was forced to undergo abortion
and in any case the F.I.R. is not lodged for commission of such
offence. Therefore, the main point of consideration is whether the
allegations are made with some motive. In this background, as
pointed out by the learned counsel for the applicant, the earlier
complaints made by the informant with the police authorities, the
protection cell and also allegations in the domestic violence

¶30

5 of 611-aba-3663-23

¶31

proceedings need to be taken into consideration. In none of these
proceedings, any such allegations regarding Section 376 and 377
of the I.P.C. are mentioned. The F.I.R. and the statement U/s.164
of the Cr.p.c. also indicate that the informant and the applicant
had a long relationship since the year 2006. They were staying
together as husband and wife. The applicant has given his name to
the informant’s son. The complaint under the Protection of Women

¶32

from Domestic Violence Act specifically mentions that the
applicant and the informant were married. In fact, she has stated
that, she was legally wedded wife of the applicant. Thus, she has
taken a contrary stand at different stages. The allegations of the
offence punishable under sections 376 and 377 of the I.P.C. are
made subsequently and apparently are made as an afterthought.
The dispute appears to be a matrimonial dispute. The charge-sheet
is already filed. There is no necessity of custodial interrogation in
the background of these allegations.

¶33

8.Considering all these facts, the applicant deserves
protection from arrest in connection of this offence.

¶34

6 of 611-aba-3663-23

¶35

9. Hence, the following order:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

i)In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.425 of 2023 registered at Kashimira
police station, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

¶38

ii)The Applicant shall not cause any harassment to the first informant or her son.

¶39

iii)The Application is disposed of.

¶40

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Amit Harilal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Harilal Sharma v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Arvind Patel Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Hifzur Rehman Ansari and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Deepak Sitaram Modhe Vs State of Maharashtra

Seema Amruta Keswad Vs State of Maharashtra

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajim Mulla Aliwari Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra