SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Karan Rajendra Gupta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 July, 2021

Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

:1: 03-aba-555-21.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2021

Karan Rajendra Gupta …. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra …. Respondent

Mr. R. R. Mishra for Applicant.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent.

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 14th JULY, 2021
(Through Video Conferencing)

P.C. :

1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

with C.R.No. 61 of 2021 registered at Nayanagar Police Station, on

13/02/2021, under sections 498A, 406, 323 and 504 r/w. 34 of

the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

2. Heard Shri. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant

and Smt. Tidke, learned APP for the State.

3. The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is

lodged by applicant’s wife on 13/02/2021. She has stated that, she

got married with the applicant on 26/04/2019 at Miraroad. At the

time of fixing the marriage, the informant’s parents had given

Gokhale 1 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2021 16/07/2021 02:11:18 :::
:2: 03-aba-555-21.odt

Rs. 7,50,000/- to the applicant for purchasing a car. It is alleged

that, after their marriage, she started residing with the applicant

and his family. After marriage, the applicant gave her some pills to

prevent pregnancy. On that ground, there was some marital

discord between the couple. There are other allegations in the

F.I.R. that, the applicant, his parents, sister and sister’s husband

retained stridhan of the informant consisting of gold and silver

ornaments, which the informant had brought with her. There are

allegations that the applicant’s parents and brother in law used to

taunt her. The applicant himself was reminding her that her father

had promised to give him an air conditioner. It is alleged that the

applicant was demanding divorce from her. On 17/01/2020, the

informant went to her parental house. After some days, she called

the applicant and his family requesting them to take her back to

her matrimonial house. However, they refused and thereafter the

informant lodged her F.I.R.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the

informant was residing separately from the applicant from

17/01/2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged after more than a year i.e.

2 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2021 16/07/2021 02:11:18 :::
:3: 03-aba-555-21.odt

on 13/02/2021. In the meantime, the applicant had filed a divorce

proceeding in December, 2020. This F.I.R. is lodged as a counter

blast. He submitted that the applicant has attended the police

station and has co-operated with the investigation. All other

accused against whom similar allegations are made are granted

anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court.

5. Learned APP opposed this application on the ground

that the Stridhan is retained by the applicant and his family. They

had accepted Rs.7,50,000/- at the time of wedding.

6. I have considered these submissions. From the perusal

of F.I.R., it is clear that, since 17/01/2020 there was no

cohabitation between the informant and applicant. The main

allegations of harassment are directed against everybody from the

applicant’s family. There is no specific instance of harassment at

the hands of present applicant. There is only vague allegation that

the applicant was making some demands as her father had

promised to give air conditioner to him. The allegation of retaining

Stridhan is directed against all other accused. They are not

restricted to the present applicant. It does appear that the F.I.R. is

3 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2021 16/07/2021 02:11:18 :::
:4: 03-aba-555-21.odt

lodged belatedly after a year. It appears to be a matrimonial

dispute between the applicant and informant. In any case,

custodial interrogation of the applicant, in the background of these

general allegations, is not really required. The applicant can be

protected by an order of anticipatory bail.

7. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No. 61 of 2021 registered at Nayanagar
Police Station, the applicant is directed to be
released on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in
the sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only) with one or two sureties in the like
amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when called and shall cooperate
with the investigation.

(iii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

4 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 15/07/2021 16/07/2021 02:11:18 :::

Leave a Reply

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

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