Bombay High Court
Seema Harish Nagal And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 September, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.396 OF 2018
1. Mrs.Seema Harish Nagal, Age 33 years,
2. Harish Trilok Nagal, Age 35 years,
both residing at Flat No.305, `B' Wing,
3rd floor, Shiv Parvati CHS Ltd;
Raheja Township, Malad (East),
Mumbai-400 097. Applicants
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Jagruti Girish Vyas, Age 27 years,
R/o.B-104, Shri Vishal Complex,
Narsing Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-64. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.397 OF 2018
1. Deepchand Navnitlal Vyas, Age 59 years,
2. Rani Deepchand Vyas, Age 52 years,
Both r/o.Flat No.2004, Tower No.1,
Tipco Heights, Rani Sati Marg,
Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097. Applicants
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Jagruti Girish Vyas, Age 27 years,
R/o.B-104, Shri Vishal Complex,
Narsing Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-64. Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.398 OF 2018
Girish Deepchand Vyas, Age 29 years,
Occ.Service, R/o.Flat No.2004, Tower No.1,
Raheja Tipco Heights, Rani Sati Marg,
Malad (East), Mumbai-400 097. Applicants
versus
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. Jagruti Girish Vyas, Age 27 years,
R/o.B-104, Shri Vishal Complex,
Narsing Lane, Malad (W), Mumbai-64. Respondents
Digitally signed by
Manish Manish S Thatte
S Thatte Date: 2018.09.12
14:57:31 +0530
2 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
Mr.Nilesh Tribhuwan I/by Mr.Suhail Shariff for applicants in three
applications.
Mr.Vivek Pandey for respondent no.2.
Ms.A.A.Takalkar, APP, for State.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 5th September 2018
PC :
1. These are applications for anticipatory bail. The applicants are
apprehending arrest in connection with CR No.538 of 2017
registered with Dindoshi Police Station for offences under Sections
498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code The applicants
preferred application for anticipatory bail before Sessions Court
which was rejected. The FIR was registered on 17 th July 2017. The
applicant no.1 in Anticipatory Bail Application No.396 of 2018
(`ABA') is sister in law of the complainant and applicant no.2 is the
husband of applicant no.1 therein. The applicants in ABA No.397 of
2018 are father-in-law and mother-in-law of the complainant. The
applicant in ABA No.398 of 2018 is the husband of complainant.
2. The case of prosecution is that marriage between the
complainant and the applicant in ABA No.398 of 2018 was
solemnized on 19th November 2013. Prior to marriage, engagement
ceremony was performed on 28th June 2012. The expenses were
incurred by the father of complainant. The complainant was
continuously harassed by the applicants-accused. Demand of Rs.10
lakh was also made. It is also alleged that Stridhan aggregating to
2,942.106 grams of gold ornaments and 1,545 grams of silver
ornaments were withheld by the applicants. The complainant was
3 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
physically and mentally harassed. Although sister-in-law of
complainant (applicant no.1 in ABA No.396 of 2018) was married to
applicant no.2 of the said application, they had stayed in the
matrimonial home of complainant and harassed the complainant. It
is further alleged that the father of complainant had gifted 100
sarees valued at Rs.1.50 lakh and had also given Rs.3 lakh to
husband of complainant and also incurred marriage expenses. The
complainant's father had gifted gold ornaments of 236.445 gms and
silver ornaments of 150 gms to husband of complainant and relatives
in the marriage. Complainant's relatives had gifted her ornaments.
The complaint provides the list of ornaments given during marriage
as Stridhan to the complainant. All the accused have abused and
mentally harassed the complainant. The father-in-law of the
complainant had demanded Rs.20 lakh to be given by the
complainant from her parents. The father of complainant was
helpless on account of harassment caused to the daughter, gave
amount of Rs.20 lakh. It is further alleged that from December-2013
to 23rd June 2017 the complainant was ill-treated by all the accused
by abuses, threats, assault and demanded Rs.10 lakhs and they have
misappropriated the gold ornaments weighing 2,942.106 grams of
gold ornaments and 1,545 grams of silver ornaments. On 29 th March
2015 the complainant fell sick due to pressure. Her husband and in-
laws did not admit her in hospital. Her parents admitted her in
hospital. The accused pressurized her to leave part time job and
education. Father-in-law had demanded Rs.20 lakhs to purchase
new house. The complainant and relatives shifted in another flat in
the same building where they were residing in November-2015. She
was also harassed at that place. The complainant lodged complaint
with State Woman Commission on 28th September 2016. On 23rd
4 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
June 2017, when the complainant went to meet her husband, he told
her that she should bring Rs.10 lakhs from her father, otherwise, she
should not come to matrimonial home.
3. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the applicants preferred
anticipatory bail application before the Sessions Court. The
application was opposed by the State. It was contended that all the
accused were responsible for commission of the said crime. On 30 th
July 2017, police went to the house of applicants along with
complainant for recovery of Stridhan but they could recover only
25% of the Stridhan and the remaining ornaments are yet to be
recovered. The learned Sessions Judge rejected the said application
on 22nd February 2018.
4. Learned advocate for applicants submits that the allegations
made in the FIR are totally false. The applicants have not committed
any offence. The entire family has been implicated in this crime. The
applicant no.1 in ABA No.396 of 2018 is married with the applicant
no.2 of the said application. However, she has been roped in this
case. The applicants in ABA No.397 of 2018 are senior citizens who
are unnecessarily dragged in the complaint. The applicants had co-
operated with the investigation and even handed over whatever
articles lying at the matrimonial home, which were recovered by
recording panchanama. It is submitted that the custodial
interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. The applicant in
ABA No.398 of 2018 has been implicated being the husband of
complainant. No specific overt act has been attributed to him. It is
further submitted that there is no proof of the ornaments which are
purportedly required to be recovered at the instance of applicants.
5 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
The complainant has falsely alleged that the ornaments are lying
with the applicants. In view of the recovery effected by the
investigating officer, the custody of the applicants is not necessary.
The complainant had left her matrimonial house on several
occasions. She had left the matrimonial house in September-2016
and the complaint was filed in July-2017. Thus, there is inordinate
delay in lodging the FIR. The dispute arises out of matrimonial
discord and in view of the nature of dispute, the applicants cannot be
subjected to custody.
5. Learned APP submitted that the complainant has referred to
the nature of harassment caused to her by all the accused-applicants.
The FIR attributes specific overt act of harassment which amounts to
cruelty to the complainant. All the accused have jointly committed
the alleged acts. The investigating officer could recover only 25%
Stridhan and the remaining property is yet to be recovered. The
applicants-accused are not ready to hand over the remaining
valuable property. If the applicants are released on anticipatory bail,
there is possibility that they would dispose off the property. The
father in law of the complainant had demanded Rs.20 lakhs from
complainant and she was meted with ill-treatment. The father of the
complainant was required to arrange Rs.20 lakh which was paid to
the father-in-law of the complainant. The said amount is yet to be
recovered. Although the applicants in ABA No.396 of 2018 are
having separate residence, they used to stay in the house of the
complainant's matrimonial home. They had also subjected the
complainant to insults and physical and mental harassment. It is
thus submitted that the anticipatory bail applications preferred by
the applicants be rejected.
6 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
6. Learned counsel for intervenor/first informant has also
opposed the grant of reliefs prayed in this applications. He has
adopted the submissions advanced by learned APP. The complainant
has also filed affidavit opposing the applications for anticipatory bail.
The affidavit reiterates the version of the complainant as spelt out in
the FIR. In addition to that, the complainant has placed on record
along with said affidavit the photographs of the complainant which
were taken during solemnization of the marriage, which according to
the complainant shows the ornaments on her person. The affidavit
also refers to other photographs of the jewellery gifted to the
complainant during marriage. The bills relating to purchase of the
ornaments are annexed to affidavit. The medical certificate of the
medical prescriptions are also part of the said affidavit. It is
contended by the intervenor that the gold was worth Rs.80 lakhs.
What is recovered is small portion of the ornaments and other
property is yet to be recovered. The accused are withholding
Stridhan worth more than Rs.60 lakhs. The accused are in process of
disposing off the said Stridhan.
7. I have perused the documents on record. I have also gone
through the FIR and the orders passed by Sessions Court rejecting
the applications for anticipatory bail. It is stated that the marriage
was solemnized between the parties in the year 2013. The FIR
indicates that the complainant was being harassed by the accused. It
is alleged that the applicants in ABA No.396 of 2018 were also
residing with the complainant. It is also apparent that during the
course of investigation, only 25% of Stridhan was recovered. The
FIR, however, refers to several other ornaments and the list of which
7 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
is referred thereto. The photograph to the affidavit-in-reply also
indicates the nature of ornaments which were gifted to the
complainant as Stridhan. The investigating officer has recorded
search panchanama on 12th November 2017 and they have recovered
certain ornaments. However, according to the investigating officer
as well as complainant, the other ornaments are yet to be recovered
and they have expressed apprehension that in the event of grant of
anticipatory bail, the said ornaments would be sold. The first
informant has also alleged that Rs.20 lakhs were demanded by the
father-in-law and considering the nature of harassment meted out to
the complainant, the father of complainant was constrained to part
with the said amount to the father-in-law. It is also the case of
complainant that huge expenses were incurred during the marriage.
The gift articles were also provided to the husband as well as cash of
Rs.3 lakh. The nature of allegations made are serious and it is
apparent that recovery of entire ornaments is yet to be made.
However, considering the fact that applicant no.1 in ABA No.396 of
2018 is the married sister-in-law and applicant no.2 is her husband,
and since they have already attended police station, their custody is
not required. Even mother-in-law who is applicant no.2 in ABA
No.397 of 2018 being and considering the factual aspects, can be
granted protection of anticipatory bail. The recovery of all the
ornaments is required to be effected. The applicant in ABA No.398
of 2018 is the husband of complainant, who had meted out the
harassment to the complainant. Demand of Rs.20 lakh was made by
applicant no.1 in ABA No.397 of 2018 and the said amount is given
by the father of complainant as alleged in the FIR. Considering the
apprehension expressed by the prosecution, the details of ornaments
furnished in affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant, nature of
8 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
allegations spelt out in the FIR, no case for grant of anticipatory bail
is made out in respect to the applicant no.1 in ABA No.397 of 2018
and applicant in ABA No.398 of 2018.
8. In the circumstances, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal Anticipatory Bail No.396 of 2018 is allowed;
(ii) The application of applicant no.1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.397 of 2018 Mr. Deepchand Navnitlal Vyas is rejected. However, application of applicant no.2 in ABA No397 of 2018 is allowed;
(iii) Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.398 of 2018 preferred by Girish Deepchand Vyas, stands rejected;
(iv) The interim order dated 5th March 2018 passed in favour of applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.396 of 2018, applicant no.2 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.397 of 2018 is confirmed;
(v) In the event of arrest of applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.396 of 2018 and applicant no.2 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.397 of 2018, they shall be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- each with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(vi) The applicants in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.396 of 2018 and applicant no.2 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.397 of 2018 shall report the investigating officer of Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai as and when called.
9 of 9 901.ABA.396.2018.doc
9. At this stage, learned advocate for applicants submits that the applicants who are declined anticipatory bail, intend to move Hon'ble Supreme Court of India challenging this order. The applicants were protected by interim order vide order dated 5 th March 2018 which is continued till today. It is prayed that the said order be extended for four weeks. Considering the request made by learned advocate for applicants, interim protection granted on 5 th March 2018 is continued for a period of four weeks in respect of applicant no.1 in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.397 of 2018 and applicant in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.398 of 2018.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST