Dismissed¶17

Shravan Ashok Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jan 2025ABA/122/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail; rejection of ABA; Section 498-A IPC; Sections 323, 500, 504, 506 IPC; matrimonial dispute; Bombay High Court; Rajesh S. Patil, J.; ABA No. 122 of 2024; decided 4 March 2025; Sessions Court rejection 9 January 2024; Tinder app; Instagram; Telegram; mobile phone password refusal; cyber expert; mediation failure; chamber settlement; non-cooperation with police; change of advocates; inconsistent salary statement; IT professional; custodial interrogation; risk of pressurizing Informant and witnesses; tampering with evidence.

What did the court decide?

When the order of 11 February 2025 requiring the Applicant to hand over the password of his mobile phone was passed in open Court, no argument was made that he did not remember the password; his subsequent claim of having forgotten it therefore carried no weight. ¶13

Shravan Ashok Chougule vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶17

Issue for consideration

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the Applicant, the husband of the Informant, in the F.I.R. under Sections 498-A, 323, 500, 504 and 506 IPC arising out of the matrimonial dispute. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

Accordingly, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶17

Ratio / Principle

¶13

Key takeaways

Since the filing of the present Anticipatory Bail Application on 11 January 2024 the Applicant has changed three lawyers, conduct indicating that he is not willing to cooperate with the police.ratio¶14
While the Court was attempting resolution, the Applicant first stated a net salary of Rs. 35,000/- per month and on the next hearing stated it was approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month; this inconsistency, the contents of the F.I.R., and the fact that he is admittedly an IT professional were significant in assessing his conduct.ratio¶15
Taking into consideration the conduct of the Applicant, which in the Court's view is serious, his physical presence for interrogation is necessary for the completion of the investigation, and there is a strong possibility that he may pressurize or threaten the Informant and witnesses and may also tamper with evidence.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail rejected — matrimonial F.I.R., Sections 498-A, 323, 500, 504, 506 IPC (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Rajesh S. Patil, J., 4 March 2025, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 122 of 2024). The Applicant, the informant's husband and admittedly an IT professional, sought pre-arrest protection after the Sessions Court had rejected his earlier application on 9 January 2024 (while granting his parents' applications), the Sessions Court having observed in paragraph 8 his use of a Tinder group for the mental torture and humiliation of the informant. Interim protection with a cooperation mandate had been granted earlier; mediation and a chamber settlement attempt on 29 January 2025 both failed. On 11 February 2025 the Court directed the Applicant to hand over his mobile-phone password; he later claimed to have forgotten it and suggested retrieval through a cyber expert, although no such plea was raised when the order was passed. His engagement of three successive advocates, shifting statements of salary (Rs. 35,000/- rising to approximately Rs. 1,00,000/- per month), and overall conduct were held to be serious. Custodial presence was found necessary for completion of the investigation, with a strong possibility of pressure on the Informant and witnesses and tampering with evidence; the application was accordingly rejected.

¶1

3-aba-122-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.122 OF 2024

¶4

Shravan Ashok Chougule ...Applicant Versus State Of Maharashtra And Anr ...Respondents

¶5

Ms. Neha M Patil , Advocate for the Applicants.

¶6

Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, APP for the State.

¶7

Mr. Rupesh Bobde a/w. Ms. Shraddha Nakadi, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

¶8

Prashant Jadhav, API Kalva Police Station Thane City present.

¶9

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.

¶10

DATED : 4 MARCH 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

The present Application has been filed by the husband of the Informant. An F.I.R. has been lodged by the wife (Informant) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 500, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶13

By an order dated 17 January 2024, notices were issued to the Informant in view of the matter being a matrimonial dispute. The statement made on behalf of the Applicant (husband) expressing his willingness for an interim settlement was recorded. Protection was

Amol D. Nawale11 pt

3-aba-122-2024.doc

granted to the Applicant by this Court, and he was directed to cooperate with the investigation in the meantime.

¶18

Thereafter, the matter was referred to mediation; however, the mediation report was submitted as unsuccessful.

¶19

When the matter came before this Court on 20 January 2025, considering that it was a matrimonial dispute and that the marriage had taken place on 13 May 2022, by the consent of counsel for both parties, the matter was scheduled to be taken up by this Court in chambers on 29 January 2025 at 5:30 p.m., to explore the possibility of settlement if the parties were agreeable. The parties were permitted to remain present along with their parents if they so desired.

¶20

Accordingly, the parties, along with their respective Advocates, attended my chamber on 29 January 2025. Unfortunately, the matrimonial dispute between the parties could not be settled, and the matter was referred back to the Court for arguments on merit.

¶21

On 11 February 2025, when the matter came before this Court. The matter was argued by the parties. The submissions of the learned Advocate for the Applicant (husband) was recorded that the Applicant (husband) will attend the concerned police station and will cooperate with the police, in order to assist the police in getting details from the mobile phone of the Applicant (husband) by handing over the password

Amol D. Nawale11 pt

3-aba-122-2024.doc

of the said mobile phone. It was also further recorded that if any other information is required by the police, even that information will be provided by the Applicant (husband), pertaining to the different “ Social Media APPs ” including that “ Tinder APP ”, “ Instagram APP ” and any other social medical apps.

¶26

Thereafter the matter appeared on 20 February 2025 when on behalf fo the Applicant a new Advocate was appointed who sought a short accommodation. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned today.

¶27

Today, when the matter was called out, the learned APP submitted that despite a specific direction given to the Applicant (husband) to hand over the password of his mobile phone, he has chosen not to provide the same.

¶28

However, in the statement recorded of the Applicant on 12 February 2025 he has submitted that he does not remember the password and that if the police wish to retrieve it, they may do so through a cyber expert who can crack the password.

¶29

Furthermore, the Applicant stated that during the period when he and the Informant lived together, he had shared the password of his Telegram account with his wife. He also expressed his lack of knowledge regarding how his mobile number was added to the Tinder group. Additionally, he stated that he was unaware of how his motherin-law’s mobile number was added to the said group.

Amol D. Nawale11 pt

3-aba-122-2024.doc

The learned APP also presented photocopies of certain messages from the Tinder group, which were posted using the mobile number of the Applicant's mother-in-law. Furthermore, the Instagram ID of the Informant (wife) was also posted from the Applicant’s mobile.

¶34

The Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the present Applicant before the Sessions Court has been rejected on 9 January 2024, and the Anticipatory Bail Application filed by the parents of the present Applicant were granted. In the said order passed by the Sessions Court the conduct of the Applicant was noted down in paragraph No.8 of the said order. For ease of reference, the paragraph No.8 of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow :-

¶35

“8) Perused recitals in report. It reveals from record and additional report submitted by police vide Exh.7, impugned number has been placed on a Tinder APP. Was in use of mother of informant. It is to note that impugned App. Is meant for open sex and invitation to sex. Applicant No.1 is Engineer by profession. Obviously, he knows importance of technology and password meant for any instrument. On perusal of different chats on Tinder Group, it was locked by applicant, thereafter, people have started offer for sex on whatsapp group, one may not imagine level of humiliation to the informant. In routine, no custodial interrogation be awarded for offence u/s. 498-A of Indian Penal Code. However, this being unique case, wherein applicant has used technology for mental torture and humiliation to informant.”

¶36

By its order dated 11 February 2025, this Court directed the Applicant to attend the concerned police station and hand over the password of his mobile phone. While the order was passed in open Court, the Advocate for the Applicant was present in Court. At that

Amol D. Nawale11 pt

3-aba-122-2024.doc

time, no argument was made stating that the Applicant did not remember the password of his mobile phone.

¶41

It is also pertinent to note that since the filing of the present Anticipatory Bail Application on 11 January 2024, the Applicant has changed three lawyers till date. The conduct of the Applicant indicates that he is not willing to cooperate with the police.

¶42

The contents of the F.I.R. and the fact that the Applicant is admittedly an IT professional are significant. During one of the hearings before this Court, while the Court was attempting to resolve the issues, the Applicant mentioned that he earns a net salary of 35,000/- per₹ month. However, on the next date of the hearing, he stated that his salary is not 35,000/- but approximately 1,00,000/- per month.₹ ₹

¶43

Taking into consideration the conduct of the Applicant, which, in my view is serious, his physical presence for interrogation is necessary for the completion of the investigation. There is a strong possibility that the Applicant may pressurize or threaten the Informant and witnesses and may also tamper with evidence.

¶44

Therefore, the present Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected.

¶45

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

¶46

¶47

Amol D. Nawale11 pt

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order of the Sessions Court dated 9 January 2024 rejecting the Applicant's earlier Anticipatory Bail Application, which preceded the present application.¶12
Sessions Court · 9 January 2024
Prior proceeding
F.I.R. lodged by the wife (Informant) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 500, 504, 506 IPC.¶1
Prior proceeding
By order dated 17 January 2024 notices were issued to the Informant in view of the matrimonial dispute, and the Applicant's willingness for interim settlement was recorded.¶2
Prior proceeding
Interim protection was granted to the Applicant by this Court with a direction to cooperate with the investigation.¶2
Prior proceeding
Matter referred to mediation; mediation report submitted as unsuccessful.¶3
Prior proceeding
With consent of counsel for both sides, the matter was scheduled in chambers on 29 January 2025 at 5:30 p.m. to explore settlement, parties permitted to attend with parents.¶4
Prior proceeding
Parties with their Advocates attended the chamber on 29 January 2025; settlement failed and the matter was referred back for arguments on merit.¶5
Prior proceeding
On 11 February 2025 submissions were recorded that the Applicant (husband) would attend the concerned police station, cooperate with the police, and provide information pertaining to social-media apps including Tinder and Instagram.¶6
Prior proceeding
By its order dated 11 February 2025 this Court directed the Applicant to attend the concerned police station and hand over the password of his mobile phone.¶13
Prior proceeding
Statement of the Applicant recorded on 12 February 2025 that he does not remember the password and that the police may retrieve it through a cyber expert who can crack the password.¶9
Prior proceeding
Applicant stated he had shared his Telegram account password with his wife during cohabitation, and professed lack of knowledge as to how his own and his mother-in-law's mobile numbers came to be added to the Tinder group.¶10
Prior proceeding
Learned APP produced photocopies of certain Tinder-group messages posted using the mobile number of the Applicant's mother-in-law; the Instagram ID of the Informant was also posted from the Applicant's mobile.¶11
Prior proceeding
The Anticipatory Bail Applications filed by the parents of the Applicant were granted by the Sessions Court.¶12
Prior proceeding
Paragraph 8 of the Sessions Court order (reproduced for reference) noted the Applicant's use of technology, i.e. a Tinder group, for mental torture and humiliation of the Informant, treating it as a unique case departing from the routine practice of no custodial interrogation for Section 498-A offences.¶12
Prior proceeding
On 20 February 2025 a newly appointed Advocate for the Applicant sought a short accommodation and the matter was adjourned.¶7

Shravan Ashok Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Ashok Chougule v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Datta Edke vs Sunil Shantilal Ghugale and Anr.

Bhivaji @ Bhikaji Nagnath Vavre vs State of Maharashtra

Dinkar Santu Kutkepatil and Ors. vs State of Maharashtra

Surekha Sudhir Sakhare vs State of Maharashtra

Neha Bakul Parekh vs State of Maharashtra

Ajit Ashok Magdum vs Shridevi Ajit Magdum Alias Shridevi Mahantesh Anangdi