Bombay High Court
Suresh Ramdas Baviskar And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 September, 2018
Author: Prakash D. Naik
Bench: Prakash D. Naik
1 of 3 919.ABA.1938.2018.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1938 OF 2018
1. Suresh Ramdas Baviskar, Age 63 years,
2. Sunanda Suresh Baviskar, Age 60 years,
3. Duhita PradipChaudhari, Age 60 years,
All R/o.Ner, Tal. And Dist.Dhule.
4. Kavita Omvamshi Gangipamula, Age 33 years,
R.o.904, Flat No.904, B/5, Near Vinayak
Hospital, Warje, Pune-52. Applicants
versus
The State of Maharashtra Respondent
Mr.Vishal Kalekar for applicants.
Mrs.A.A.Takalkar, APP, for State.
Mr.Anandrao Kashid, PSI, D.N.Nagar Police Station, present.
CORAM : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.
DATE : 21st September 2018
PC :
1. The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with CR
No.212 of 2018 registered with D.N.Nagar Police Station, Mumbai
for offences under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506 read with
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged on 27 th April
2018. The applicant nos.1 and 2 are father-in-law and mother-in-
law of the complainant whereas applicant nos.3 and 4 are sisters-in-
law of the complainant. The FIR is lodged on account of
matrimonial discord between parties. The husband of the
complainant is already arrested and he has been granted bail. The
applicants had preferred an application for anticipatory bail before
the Sessions Court which was rejected on 6th August 2018.
Manish S Digitally signed by
Manish S Thatte
Thatte Date: 2018.09.25
12:29:13 +0530
2 of 3 919.ABA.1938.2018.doc
2. Perusal of FIR indicates that there are matrimonial disputes
between the informant and her husband since 2009 to 2013. Both of
them had instituted different litigations against each other. Before
lodging the FIR, the complainant had initiated complaint under
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Learned
advocate for applicant submitted that both the parties have filed
purshis and said proceedings were withdrawn. Pursuant to that the
FIR was registered. Notice u/s 41(1) of Cr.P.C was issued to
applicant. On perusal of the order passed by Sessions Court, it is
apparent that primary objection of the prosecution was that the
applicant had not attended the police station though notice was
issued to them under Section 41(1) of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions
Judge has observed that the say filed by the prosecution states that
the applicant had not replied to the notice nor co-operated with
investigation.
3. Learned APP submitted that in spite of notice being issued to
them the applicants had not approached the investigating officer and
had not co-operated with investigation.
4. The advocate for applicant had submitted that the FIR has
been registered at D.N.Nagar Police Station and applicant nos.1 to 3
are residents of Dhule and applicant no.4 is resident of Pune.
Therefore, they could not respond to the notice issued by police and,
therefore, there was difficulty in attending the police when notice
was issued. It is submitted that the applicants would co-operate with
investigation.
3 of 3 919.ABA.1938.2018.doc
5. The dispute is arising out of matrimonial differences. The
application was rejected by Sessions Court on the ground of non
attendance to police station. Husband of complainant was arrested.
Custody of applicants is not required.
6. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of arrest of applicants in connection with CR No.212 of 2018 registered with D.N.Nagar Police Station, Mumbai, the applicants be released on bail on furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount;
(ii) The applicants shall attend the investigating officer of D.N.Nagar Police Station on 6th October 2018 and 7th October 2018 between 10 am and 12 noon;
(iii) The applicants thereafter shall attend the investigating officer of D.N.Nagar Police Station as and when called till filing of charge sheet.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) MST