SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Manish Vilasrao Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 25 June, 2019

1 5-ABA 1750-18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1750 OF 2018
Manish Vilasrao Chavan … Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. Bhupesh Dhumatkar I/b A. Pinto, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
Mr. S. R. Agarkar, for the State.

CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :- 25th JUNE, 2019.
P. C. :-

1. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection with CR No.

71/2018 registered with Panchawati Police Station, Nasik under Sections

498A, Section406, Section323, Section504 and Section50 of the IPC.

2. The FIR is lodged by applicant’s wife on 28th February 2019. In her

FIR she had stated that she got married with the applicant on 21 st April

2017 and at that time her father had spent large amount for ornaments and

other expenses. Initially the informant was treated properly. Slowly, the

informant realised that the applicant was addicted to different vices like

smoking and affairs with other ladies. It is mentioned in the FIR that on

many occasions the applicant used to come home consuming liquor and she

used to feel insecure. She also saw applicant’s indecent photographs with

other girls. The elders in the family tried to settle the issues. However, the

applicant started raising suspicion about her character. Thereafter, she was
Nikita Gadgil
1 of 2

::: Uploaded on – 26/06/2019 27/06/2019 01:47:09 :::
2 5-ABA 1750-18.doc

left at her parental house and was not taken to her matrimonial house.

Based on these allegations FIR is lodged.

3. Heard, Mr. Shivarkar, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.

Agarkar, learned APP for the State.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that taking into

consideration the entire allegations in the FIR, no case is made out against

the present applicant. No offence is made out in the FIR. The learned

counsel for the informant submits that the applicant has retained her

stridhan. Considering the allegations in the FIR, it is seen that these are

general allegations and in any case even if the allegations pertain to the

offence punishable under Section 498A, custodial interrogation of the

applicant is not necessary. Hence, the order:-

ORDER

(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with C.R. No. 71/18

registered with Panchawati Police Station, the Applicant is directed to

be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs.

25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) with one or two

sureties in the like amount.

(ii) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Nikita Gadgil
2 of 2

::: Uploaded on – 26/06/2019 27/06/2019 01:47:09 :::

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