SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Arun Rajdhar Shukla vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 3 July, 2019

ABA 2470-18 (common
order).doc

Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2470 OF 2018

Arun Rajdhar Shukla .Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra anr. .Respondents

WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2471 OF 2018

Sunita Shukla .Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra anr. .Respondents

WITH
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2472 OF 2018

Shiv Kumari Shukla .Applicant

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra anr. .Respondents

Mr. Anirban Tripathi, Advocate, for the Applicants in all matters
Mr. S. S. Hulke, APP, for the Respondents – State in all matters

CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.

DATE : 03.07.2019
P.C.

. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:52:55 :::
ABA 2470-18 (common
order).doc

2. By these Applications, the Applicants seek pre-arrest bail in

connection with C. R. No. 118 of 2018 registered with the M. H. B.

Colony Police Station, Mumbai, for the alleged offences punishable

under Sections 498A, 406, 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

3. Perused the papers. The Applicant in ABA No. 2470 of

2018 is the husband of the Complainant and the Applicants in ABA Nos.

2471 2472 of 2018 are sister-in-law and mother-in-law of the

Complainant respectively. According to the Complainant – Seema, she

got married to the Applicant on 01.12.2009 and that within a few days

i. e. within four days, her ornaments were taken by the Applicant and

were deposited in the Bank locker and never returned to her again. The

Complainant has alleged that the Applicants were demanding dowry and

car, were abusing, harassing and ill-treating her. Learned counsel for the

Applicants submitted that the Applicants have been falsely implicated in

the said case. He submitted that falsity of the allegations in the FIR,

that the Complainant had given her jewellery to the Applicant within

four days of marriage, is falsified by the photographs produced by the

Applicants, which show the Complainant wearing the jewellery. It

2 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:52:55 :::
ABA 2470-18 (common
order).doc
appears that the Bank locker where the said jewellery was kept is in the

name of the mother-in-law and sister-in-law of the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, the jewellery was never returned to her

since 2009, whereas, according to the learned counsel for the

Applicants, the jewellery was throughout with the Complainant. He

submits that in the circumstances, there is no question of

misappropriation of the Complainant’s jewellery i. e. Stridhan. He

further submits that the Applicants had never demanded any car as

alleged. The car which was purchased by the Applicant – Sunita Shukla

was purchased by paying a previous mortgage loan. He further submits

that the Applicants have co-operated with the investigation. It appears

that the Applicants have attended the concerned police station and have

co-operated with the investigation. It also appears that the locker where

the Complainant’s jewellery was allegedly kept, was opened in the

presence of panchas and panchanama was done, however, no jewellery

as alleged by the Complainant was found in the said locker. There are

allegations and counter allegations.

4. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the case, custodial interrogation of the Applicants is not warranted.

Accordingly, the Applications are allowed and the Applicants are

3 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:52:55 :::
ABA 2470-18 (common
order).doc
granted pre-arrest bail on the following terms conditions :-

ORDER

(i) In the event of arrest, the Applicants be enlarged on bail, on

executing P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- each with one or two

local sureties in the like amount;

(ii) The Applicants shall report to the investigating officer of

the concerned police station as when called for by the investigating

officer till the filing of the charge-sheet;

(iii) The Applicants shall not tamper with the evidence or

attempt to influence or contact the complainant, witnesses or any person

concerned with the case;

(iv) The Applicants shall co-operate with the investigation.

5. The Applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms and are

accordingly disposed of.

All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.

(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)

4 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 09/07/2019 10/07/2019 04:52:55 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation