Allowed

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Jan 2024ABA/3697/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant in connection with offences under the IPC involving breaking locks, relying on the principle of parity with a co-accused. The court directed attendance at the police station and cooperation with the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted in the event of arrest, subject to furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000 and attending the police station.

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

24-ABA-3697-23.odt

¶2

1 / 5

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.3697 OF 2023

¶5

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav.... Applicant
 versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
…....

¶6

Mr. Rahul V. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant.

¶7

• Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the State/Respondent.

¶8

Mr. Vishal U. Rankhambe, Advocate for Intervenor.

¶9

CORAM: SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE: 02nd JANUARY, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

¶12

with C.R.No.272/2023, dated 25/08/2023, registered with
Khopoli Police Station, Raigad, under sections 441, 445, 447,
453 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. Rahul V. Shinde, learned counsel for the

¶14

Digitally signed by MANUSHREE MANUSHREE NESARIKAR NESARIKAR Date: 2024.01.04 15:19:34 +0530

¶15

Applicant, Mr. Vishal U. Rankhambe, learned counsel for the
Intervenor and Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State.

¶16

Nesarikar

¶17

24-ABA-3697-23.odt

¶18

2 / 5

¶19

3. The FIR is lodged by Anita Pradhan. She has stated
that on 21/08/2023 at around 11.30 a.m., she and her husband
had gone to the market in Khopoli. When they returned at
around 02.30 p.m., she saw that somebody had broken the lock
on the iron gate of their house and had put a new lock on the
inner wooden door. The informant made enquiries. She was
informed by the neighbours that they had heard the sound of
somebody using a hammer. On 22/08/2023 CCTV footage of the
society was seen. At that time it was observed that one car
bearing number mentioned in the FIR had entered the society.
There were two unknown persons. One unknown man and one
Harshada were present in that car. They had committed that
offence. On this basis, the FIR is lodged.

¶20

4. Learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the

¶21

offence is serious and therefore he should be permitted to be
heard. In the interest of justice I have heard learned counsel for
the Intervenor/first informant.

¶22

3 / 5 24-ABA-3697-23.odt

¶23

5. Learned counsel for the Applicant relied on the order
passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court on 22/12/2023 in
Anticipatory Bail Application No.3630 of 2023, wherein the
main accused Harshada was granted anticipatory bail. He
claimed parity.

¶24

6. Learned APP submitted that the present Applicant is
not cooperating with the investigation and has not attended the
police station for the purpose of investigation. She submitted
that the offence is serious.

¶25

7. Learned counsel for the Intervenor submitted that the

¶26

offence is not only serious but has caused adverse impact on the
health of the informant’s husband. He has suffered heart attack
because of this incident. He submitted that assuming there is a
property dispute, the Applicant and others could not have taken
forcible possession in this manner.

¶27

4 / 5 24-ABA-3697-23.odt

¶28

8. I have considered these submissions. Though the act of

¶29

the accused cannot be justified, however, I am deciding this
application mainly on the ground of principle of parity. The
order in Anticipatory Bail Application No.3630 of 2023 shows
that the main accused Harshada was granted protection of
anticipatory bail order. She was the main accused. The dispute
of the informant was with this Harshada. The Applicant
therefore has lesser role and motive than the main accused.
Therefore, only on the ground of parity, the Applicant can be
granted protection of anticipatory bail. It is needless to add that
the Applicant will have to attend the police station and
cooperate with the investigation.

¶30

9. Hence, the following order :

¶31

O R D E R

¶32

(i)In the event of her arrest in connection with
C.R.No.272/2023, dated 25/08/2023, registered
with Khopoli Police Station, Raigad, the
Applicant is directed to be released on bail on

¶33

5 / 5 24-ABA-3697-23.odt

¶34

her furnishing PR bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount.

¶35

(ii)The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station 10/01/2024, 11/01/2024 and
12/01/2024 between 03.00 to 05.00 p.m. and
shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶36

(iii)If the Applicant does not attend or does not
cooperate with the investigation, the prosecuting
agency as well as the first informant, are at
liberty to move an application for cancellation of
anticipatory bail granted in her favour by this
order.

¶37

(iv)The Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶38

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Sidheshwar Gurav 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

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

Amit Harilal Sharma Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ajim Mulla Aliwari Shaikh Vs State of Maharashtra