Bombay High Court
Dhanashree Mayur Shinde vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 15 February, 2021
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
1/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2495 OF 2019
Vishal Baburao Shinde .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.10 OF 2020
IN
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2495 OF 2019
Dhanashree Mayur Shinde ... Intervener
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN
Vishal Baburao Shinde .... Applicant
versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
.......
Mr. Sanjeev Kadam a/w Mr. Pradip Kotkar a/w Mr. Sachin R.
Pawar, Advocate for Applicant.
Ms. J. S. Lohokare, APP for the State/Respondent.
Mr. Ravindra S. Pachundkar, for Intervener.
Mr. S. S. Lokhande, A.P.I., Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune.
.......
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 15th FEBRUARY, 2021
P.C. :
. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.395/2019 registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station,
Manjusha
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::
2/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
Pune (Pune Rural) under Sections 313, 506 read with 34 of Indian
Penal Code.
2. Heard Mr. Ravindra Pachundkar, learned Counsel for
the original first informant who has filed Interim Application
No.01/2020 in A.B.A. No.2495/2019, Mr. Sanjeev Kadam, learned
Counsel for the applicant and Ms. J. S. Lohokare, learned APP for
the State.
3. The F.I.R. is lodged by the first informant who has
made allegations against her husband's brother Amit and cousin
Vishal that they had caused miscarriage against her wish. Vishal is
the present applicant. She has stated in her F.I.R., that, she was
residing at Dattanagar Wadaki with her husband Mayur, brother-
in-law Amit, Mayur's parents and Amit's wife. The informant's
husband Mayur has a medical store. She had married with Mayur
on 24th December 2014. Initially, everything was well between the
couple. In April 2018, she came to know that she had become
pregnant. She told her husband. She used to visit her brother-in-
law Amit for regular check up. Amit was a Doctor. In June 2018,
she had gone to Amit's Dispensary for regular Sonography. On 12 th
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::
3/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
June 2018, Mayur and Amit told her that the growth of foetus was
not proper and she had to undergo abortion. She suggested to take
second opinion but they refused And and gave her tablets for
terminating her pregnancy. It is her case that believing them, she
consumed those tablets causing abortion.
4. On second occasion in March 2019, she again became
pregnant. She again went to the Dispensary of Amit. The initial
reports were normal. On 25th March 2019, in the morning at 9.30
a.m. her husband Mayur gave her tea to drink and she drank it. At
around 12.30 p.m. she had pain in stomach. She went home.
There was heavy bleeding causing abortion. After two days, when
she was at home, she told her husband to bring Nira. She went to
the balcony and saw that her husband was mixing some power in a
plastic bottle. The informant asked him about it. He told her that
he was cleaning the bottle. The informant got suspicious. She
checked his mobile phone. She heard call recording of Mayur with
Amit and the present applicant Vishal. The present applicant is first
cousin of Mayur. Based on this recording, she was satisfied that all
three of them had caused abortion against her wish. On this basis,
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::
4/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
she had lodged the F.I.R.
5. Learned Counsel for the informant submitted that the
applicant is also involved in the offence. He submitted that he is
the master mind in this offence. He had suggested that the
informant should be made to terminate pregnancy on both
occasions.
6. Learned Counsel submitted that the first informant had
heard recording and based on this recording she had reached this
conclusion.
7. Learned APP, on instructions, of the Investigating
Officer who is present in the Court makes a categorical statement
that the Investigating Agency has found no evidence of such
conversation between Vishal and Mayur whereby, the applicant
Vishal was suggesting to Mayur that he should force the informant
to undergo abortion or he should take such forcible steps. She
submitted that the transcript recovered during the investigation is
of the conversation between Amit and Mayur and not with the
present applicant Vishal.
8. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::
5/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
application for Amit was withdrawn when he had sought
anticipatory bail from this Court. Subsequently, he was arrested
and was released on bail.
9. Learned Counsel has not pressed application for
anticipatory bail for the husband Mayur. Therefore, investigating
agency is free to investigate. Shri Kadam made a categorical
statement that the informant and her husband Mayur are at
present staying together.
10. I have considered all these submissions. As far as the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the informant are
concerned, they are opposite of the submissions made by the
learned APP, on instructions, of the Investigating Officer. Therefore,
at this stage, the applicant Vishal's role is not brought out clearly.
In fact, the Investigating Agency has not found any evidence
against him regarding the allegations made by the informant. The
Investigating Agency has already seized the mobile phone of
Mayur and has also seized the CD of recording which is produced
by the informant. Therefore, for investigation purposes, in this
background, the applicant's custody is not necessary. It is also
::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::
6/6 5.1 ABA 2495-2019.odt
significant to take into account the statement made by the learned
Counsel for the applicant that the husband Mayur and the
informant's wife are at present staying together. In this view of the
matter, I do not see any propriety in permitting custodial
interrogation of the present applicant. He deserves protection of
anticipatory bail.
11. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R.No.395/2019 registered at Loni Kalbhor Police Station, Pune (Pune Rural), the applicant is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.
(iii) In view of the disposal of this application, nothing survives in Interim Application No.10 of 2020 and the same is also disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) ::: Uploaded on - 23/02/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2021 05:28:21 :::