Dismissed

Xyz v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2024APEAL/1206/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellant challenged the trial court's order granting regular bail to the accused, alleging serious offences and pressure on the complainant to withdraw the FIR. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the bail grant and rejected the appeal, leaving the complainant liberty to seek cancellation for breach of conditions.

What did the court decide?

Appeal rejected; liberty preserved for complainant to apply to trial court for cancellation of bail on breach of conditions or alleged threats.

Xyz Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-AS:15231

¶2

PMB 36.APEAL.1206-23.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1206 OF 2023

¶5

MRS. XYZ ..APPELLANT VS.

¶6

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶7

AJIT DATTATRAY SALUNKE ..RESPONDENTS

¶8

Adv. Vivek N. Arote for the appellant. Smt. Sangeeta D. Shinde, APP for the State. Adv. Sachin N. Nangare i/b. Adv. J. V. Tare Patil for respondent No.2.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

¶10

DATE : APRIL 1, 2024

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶13

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the

¶14

trial Court was not justified in enlarging the respondent No.2 on bail in view of the serious allegations. It is submitted that there was no reason to doubt the version of the prosecutrix. My attention is invited to the accusations in the FIR which is at Exhibit-’A’. It is submitted that the accusations are serious and the ingredients of the alleged offence are clearly attracted. It is further submitted that the

¶15

1/3

¶16

PMB 36.APEAL.1206-23.doc

¶17

respondent No.2 is pressurising the complainant to withdraw the complaint.

¶18

3. I have heard learned APP and learned counsel for the accused. I have perused the impugned order. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The trial Court has recorded prima facie observations that the relationship between the parties was consensual in nature. The trial Court has also relied upon the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anurag Soni Vs. State of Chhattisgarh¹ . A reference is then made to the decision in Ansaar Mohammad vs. The State of Rajasthan² .

¶19

4. I see no reason to take a view different from that of

¶20

the trial Court especially in a matter where the trial Court has enlarged the accused on regular bail on the terms and conditions mentioned in the order.

¶21

5. If it the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused is threatening her to withdraw the complainant, it is always open for the complainant to approach the trial Court alleging breach of conditions or on

¶22

1 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1857

¶23

2 2022 Live Law (SC) 599

¶24

2/3

¶25

PMB 36.APEAL.1206-23.doc

¶26

the ground that the accused is threatening the complainant to withdraw the complaint. The trial Court shall obviously consider the application for cancellation of bail alleging breach of conditions on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶27

6. Keeping this liberty open, the appeal is rejected.

¶28

3/3

Xyz v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Xyz 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kilash Maruti Raut Nee Patil vs the Secretary Govt. of India Under Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Govindlal Vithaldas Sindhwad vs Dotom Superstructure LLP

Pinak Bharat and Co. vs Anil Ramrao Naik

Gajanan Dattatray Gore Vs State of Maharashtra

Wasif Daud Hamdule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Mayur @ Rakesh Gulab Kumbare Vs State of Maharashtra