1 27 ACB 141-2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 141 OF 2018

Palak Vijay Chiraee …Applicant

Versus

1] The State of Maharashtra,
2] Hir Dinesh Chairee,
3] Komal Arjundas Ahuja. …Respondents
…….
Mr. Girish Nagori, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. A. A. Jagatkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No. 1.
Mr. Chaitanya C. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 2 3.
…….

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : 25TH MARCH, 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT :

01. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By

consent of the parties heard finally.

02. Heard Mr.G.A. Nagori, learned Advocate for

the applicant, Mr.A.A.Jagatkar, the leanred A.P.P.

for respondent No.1 and Mr.C.C.Deshpande, the

learned Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3. The

present applicant is the first informant. She

lodged the first information report with Police

Station, Dondaicha, Dist. Dhule against the

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 02:40:37 :::
2 27 ACB 141-2018

respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and others on 27.5.2018. On

the basis of which the crime was registered vide C.

R. No. 46 of 2018 for the offence punishable under

Sections 498A, 313 read with 34 of the Indian Penal

Code.

03. Since the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were

apprehending their arrest, they preferred an

application for grant of bail before the Court below

and the said was registered as Cri. Bail Appln No.

543/2018 and the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Dhule on 23.7.2018 granted anticipatory bail in

their favour with a direction that they shall report

Investigating Officer once in a week for next 30

days from the 23.7.2018 and shall be with the

Investigating Officer from 4.00 PM to 5.00 PM.

04. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the sisters-

in-law of the first informant. Perusal of the first

information report would show that the allegation

against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is that

with the help of the husband of the applicant

certain drugs were administered to her resulting

into the abortion. The investigation has already

crossed the stage of seizure of various articles.

Further, even according to the Counsel for the

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 02:40:37 :::
3 27 ACB 141-2018

applicant, the abortion took place in the month of

March 2018 and the first information report is

lodged in the month of May 2018. Thus, there is a

delay which has remained to be explained at least at

this stage.

05. Looking to the nature of the allegations

made against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in

my view, no fruitful purpose will be served by

canceling the anticipatory bail granted in favour of

these two ladies, especially when there is no

complaint on the part of the prosecution that they

have not attended the Police Station as directed by

the Court below. Hence, there is no merit in the

application. It leads to me to pass following

order;

ORDER

(i)The application is dismissed.

(ii)Rule is discharged.

[V.M. DESHPANDE]
JUDGE
Dahibhate/-

::: Uploaded on – 26/03/2019 27/03/2019 02:40:37 :::