Bombay High Court
Arti W/O. Lokdeshwar @ Raju Edake vs Ramesh S/O. Devidasrao Kurhade And ... on 29 July, 2019
Author: T.V. Nalawade
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
Cri. Appln. No. 3748/18 & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
48 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3748 OF 2018
WITH APPLN/3749/2018 WITH APPLN/3750/2018
ARTI W/O. LOKDESHWAR @ RAJU EDAKE
VERSUS
BABURAO S/O. DEVBA EDAKE AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. V.C. Patil Ashtekar
Advocate for Respondent 1 to 3 : Mr. P.K. Ippar h/f. Mr. S.J.
Salunke
APP for Respondent 4 : Mrs. D.S. Jape
...
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 29/07/2019.
ORDER :
1. All the three applications are filed for cancellation of bail orders made by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in different applications which were filed by respondents in C.R. No. 118/2018 registered with Barad Police Station, Tahsil Kinwat, District Nanded. The crime is registered for offences punishable under sections 376, 498-A, 504, 506 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. Both the sides are heard.
2. During arguments, it was submitted that the F.I.R. itself to the extent of applicant from Criminal Application No. 3749/2018 is quashed by this Court. Submission is made that to ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 01:02:10 ::: Cri. Appln. No. 3748/18 & Ors.
2the extent of respondent Meena Edake, the F.I.R. came to be quashed and so, Criminal Application No. 3750/2018 to that extent cannot be considered. So, the proceedings can be heard as against Gangubai Edake, one of the respondent from Criminal Application No. 3750/2018 and the three applicants from Criminal Application No. 3748/2018.
3. The crime is registered on the basis of report given by applicant from all the three proceedings. Son of Baburao viz. Lokdeshwar is the husband of the applicant. Respondents Lokdeshwar Edake and Sunil Edake are the sons of Baburao. The main allegations are as against Sunil.
4. The F.I.R. came to be given on 30.10.2018. The marriage took place on 4.3.2018. Allegations are made that after few days of the marriage, the husband started asking the informant to bring Rs. five lakh as he wanted to open new showroom for his business. Allegations are made that she was mentally and physically harassed by husband and all his relatives. She has made allegations that the husband is addicted to liquor and he used to come to home in the late hours of the night. She has made allegations that Sunil, brother of the ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 01:02:10 ::: Cri. Appln. No. 3748/18 & Ors.
3husband, had evil eye on her and on 7.5.2018 at 11.00 p.m. when she was sleeping in the bedroom, Sunil entered the room when her husband was absent and by using force he took sexual intercourse with her. It is contended that this incident was disclosed by her to her husband and to other relatives of the husband, but they did not pay attention to her grievance and they said that similar treatment will be given to her in future also. It is her contention that as no action was taken against Sunil, he continued such acts and he virtually exploited her on many occasions as her husband was not coming to home in time. She has made other allegations also against them and it is her contention that due to illtreatment, her father had taken her back to his house. It is her contention that she did not give F.I.R. immediately as she could not show courage to disclose aforesaid acts of Sunil to others. But, ultimately when she gave complaint to Redressal Cell, she was taken in confidence and then she disclosed the incident to others and her report was accepted.
5. This Court has carefully gone through the bail orders made by the Sessions Court. The submissions and the orders show that for about one month, Sunil was kept behind bars. The ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 01:02:10 ::: Cri. Appln. No. 3748/18 & Ors.
4Sessions Court has considered the circumstances like husband has filed proceeding for restitution of conjugal rights and the Sessions Court has observed that the husband would not have filed such proceeding if there was some truth in the allegations made by the informant. In any case, considering the age of the applicant which was more than 22 years and the fact that Sunil was kept behind bars for about one month and no investigation was to be made now and she was living with her parents, the Sessions Court has granted bail. Though it is submitted that the applicant had given the complaint to police on 15.11.2018 in which she alleged that threats were given to her, it can be said that such kinds of applications are ordinarily given to see that bail is not granted. Bail came to be granted on 30.11.2018. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the order made by the Sessions Court due to aforesaid circumstances. So, all the three applications stand rejected.
[T.V. NALAWADE, J.] ssc/ ::: Uploaded on - 30/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2019 01:02:10 :::