Bombay High Court
Sunanda W/O. Sukhdev Sonawane vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 December, 2018
Author: V.L.Achliya
Bench: V.L.Achliya
1 ABA 1179.2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
915 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION
NO.1179 OF 2018
SUNANDA W/O. SUKHDEV SONAWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
......
Mr. S.S.Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. P.K.Lakhotiya, A.P.P. for Resp. - State.
......
CORAM : V.L.ACHLIYA, J.
DATE : 05/12/2018
......
ORAL ORDER :
1. The applicant apprehending arrest in connection with the offences punishable u/s 498-A 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C. registered vide Crime No. 193/2018 with Kallam police station, District Osmanabad, has preferred this application for anticipatory bail for the reasons set out in detail in the application.
2. Heard the learned counsel for applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the F.I.R. as well as papers of investigation made available during the course of hearing of the application.
3. In brief, it is the contention of learned counsel for applicant that the allegations made in the F.I.R. are vague and general in nature. It is submitted that if the allegations made in the F.I.R. are taken to its face value and accepted in its entirety, still it make out no offence ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 ::: 2 ABA 1179.2018 u/s 498-A as well as 304-B of I.P.C. It is submitted that the instances quoted in the complaint make out no offence u/s 498-A or 304-B of I.P.C. It is submitted that the investigation in the case is practically over. Except the applicant all other accused are released on bail. It is submitted that the case of applicant stands on same footing as that of the co-accused who are granted anticipatory bail by this Court as well as Sessions Court. It is pointed out that vide order dated 16/10/2018 passed by this Court [CORAM : V.K.JADHAV,J.] in A.B.A. No. 1086 of 2018, co-accused was granted anticipatory bail based upon similar allegations. It is submitted that the applicant is aged 60 years. Nature of accusations made against the applicant requires no custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the applicant has no past record of involvement in criminal case. It is submitted that the complaint lodged is after-thought. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased and son of applicant who was arrested in the case enlarged on bail by the Sessions Court.
4. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. opposed the application with contention that the F.I.R. lodged by the informant prima facie make out offence u/s 498-A and 304-B of I.P.C. against the applicant. By referring the allegations made in the F.I.R., learned A.P.P. submits that the deceased was illtreated and harassed by her husband, mother-in-law and other members of the family which include the married sister-in-law of the deceased. It is submitted that the witnesses whose statements are recorded during the course of investigation have stated in ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 ::: 3 ABA 1179.2018 their respective statement that the deceased was suffering harassment at the hands of accused which include present applicant. It is submitted that the deceased died within seven years of marriage and that too by hanging which raises the presumption to dowry death as contemplated u/s 113-B of the Evidence Act. In this back-ground, learned A.P.P. submits that the applicant not deserves to be extended protection u/s 438 of Cr.P.C.
5. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced, I have carefully perused the F.I.R. and statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation. I am of the view the reasons assigned for illtreatment and harassment are vague and general in nature. F.I.R. came to be lodged by the father of the deceased alleging therein that two months after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to illtreatment and harassment by her husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. At the time of coming to their house, the deceased used to tell the illtreatment which she was suffering at the hands of accused persons. She used to tell that the accused were not providing money to recharge her mobile phone. After her first delivery the applicant enquired as to how she was required to undergo cesarean when no one in their family required to undergo cesarean. It is further stated that when she came after taking rest at her parents' house, her in-laws asked her as to how she could stay at her parents' house leaving her husband. She was asked to bring Rs. 2 Lakhs from her father out of retiral benefit secured by her father. For not fulfilling demand, the accused illtreated her. The applicant told her that after retirement of her ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 ::: 4 ABA 1179.2018 father, he gave Rs. 1 Lakh each to each of his daughters and asked her to bring Rs. 2 Lakhs from her father.
6. If we consider the allegations made in its totality, then I am of the view that there appears to be substance in the submission of learned counsel for applicant that the allegations made in the F.I.R. and more particularly against the applicant are vague and general in nature. Perusal of papers of investigation reveals that during the course of investigation, the statements of the persons residing in the neighbourhood of the deceased were recorded by the Investigating Officer. None of them disclosed about illtreatment and harassment the deceased was suffering at the hands of present applicant. On the contrary, the witnesses have stated that they have never heard and seen quarrel between deceased and the applicant.
7. Thus, considering the overall nature of accusations against applicant, age, antecedents, availability of the applicant for trial and other relevant consideration, I am of the view, the case is made out to extend protection to the applicant u/s 438 of Cr.P.C. All the accused except the applicant are already enlarged on regular/anticipatory bail. Release of the applicant on anticipatory bail would not hamper the on-gong investigation. So also, the custodial integration of the applicant is not required. Hence, the following order.
::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 ::: 5 ABA 1179.2018 ORDER [i] The application is allowed. [ii] In the event of arrest of the applicant - Sunanda w/o Sukhdev Sonawane in connection with the offences punishable u/s 498-A 304-B r/w 34 of I.P.C. registered
vide Crime No. 193/2018 with Kallam police station, District Osmanabad, the applicant be released on bail her furnishing bail in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- [Rupees Twenty Five Thousand] with one or two sureties in the like amount on the following conditions.
[a] Applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when directed by him and co-operate in the investigation.
[b] The applicant shall not indulge into the act amounting to tampering the prosecution witnesses.
[c] The applicant shall not leave the country without seeking prior permission from trial Court.
[d] In the case of breach of any of the condition, the anticipatory bail granted to the applicant is liable to be cancelled.
8. It is clarified that the observations made above are made for limited purpose to decide the present application and none of the observation made shall be treated as expression of view of this Court as to merit of case of ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 ::: 6 ABA 1179.2018 prosecution against the applicant.
9. The application disposed of in above terms.
[V.L.ACHLIYA] JUDGE KNP/ABA 1179.2018 ::: Uploaded on - 10/12/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 29/12/2018 07:43:37 :::