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 :::
