SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Revan Sudam Kanhere And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 12 September, 2018





Revan Sudam Kanhere and anr. … Applicants
The State of Maharashtra and anr. … Respondents

Mr.Satyavart Joshi a/w. Mr. Nitesh Mohite i/b. Mr.Jaydeep D. Mane for
the applicants.

Mr.S.V. Gavand, APP for the respondent/State.


DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER 2018.
P.C. :

1. This is an application on behalf of husband and mother-in-law for

enlarging them on bail. They both are convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 306 read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the applicants are sentenced

to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years apart from direction to

pay fine of Rs.1000/- each and in default to undergo further rigorous

imprisonment for three months. For the offence punishable under

Vina k 1/5

Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the

applicants are directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three

years apart from payment of fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to

undergo fifteen days rigorous imprisonment.

2. The learned Counsel appearing for the applicants, at the outset

submits that he has instructions not to press the application for

applicant no.1 Revan Sudam Kanhere and the application to that be

disposed of with a liberty to the applicant no.1 to approach again if the

appeal is not listed for hearing within a period of one year. The learned

Counsel for the applicants further argued that evidence of the first

informant/PW1 Alka Garad shows that the accused persons were

having well constructed house and irrigated land. As such there was no

reason for them to demand an amount of Rs.50,000/- for construction

of house and another amount of Rs.50,000/- towards construction of

well in the field. There is no evidence to reflect abetment on the part of

the applicant no.2. Hence, applicant no.2 is entitled to be released on


3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the application

by contending that considering social impact of crime in question as

well as fact that applicant no.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere had been to the

Vina k 2/5

parental house of the deceased for demand of Rs.50,000/-, hence she is

not entitled for bail.

4. I have carefully considered the submission so advanced and

perused the impugned judgment and order as well as copies of

deposition of witnesses.

5. Rekha (since deceased) was married to accused no.1 Revan

Sudam Kanhere on 15th June, 2012. She was left at her parental house

by accused no.1 Revan on 21 st May, 2014. She consumed poison in the

filed on 22nd May, 2014 and died suicidal death on 26 th May, 2014. On

5th June, 2014, the First Information Report came to be lodged by PW 1

Alka Garad who happens to be mother of deceased Rekha.

6. As the application so far it relates to applicant no.1 Revan is not

pressed, I have not considered evidence against him. The first informant

Alka Garad is material witness in the instant case. So far as it relates to

averments and allegations against applicant no.2/accused no.3 Rajabai

Kanhere, it is alleged by PW1 Alka Garad that eight months after

marriage, applicant no.2 Rajabai alongwith Rekha (since deceased) had

been to her house for demand of Rs.50,000/- for construction of house

Vina k 3/5

and at that time Rekha had told her, accused persons are harassing her

on account of demand of money. The subsequent part of evidence of

PW1 Alka Garad shows that it was accused no.1 Revan who had left his

wife Rekha at the parental house under threat, she should not return

unless and until she bring Rs.50,000/- for construction of the well.

Prima facie, it appears that the act of applicant no.2/accused no.3

Rajabai in demanding the amount of Rs.50,000/-, eight months after

marriage of her son Revan no immediate nexus with commission of

suicide by Rekha in a month of May, 2014. Considering the nature of

evidence against applicant no.2/accused no.3 Rajabai who happens to

be mother-in-law of the deceased, she deserves to be released on bail;

Hence, the order;

:: ORDER :;

(i) The application so far it relates to accused no.1 Revan Sudam

Kanhere is disposed of as not pressed with a liberty to him to

approach this Court after one year if the appeal is not listed

for hearing.

(ii) The application so far it relates to applicant no.2/accused

no.3 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere is allowed.

(iii) Substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed on the

applicant no.2 Rajabai Sudam Kanhere is suspended and she

Vina k 4/5

is directed to be released on bail on her executing P.R. Bond

in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and on furnishing surety in the

like amount by her.

(iv) The application is disposed of accordingly.

signed by
Vina Vina Arvind
Arvind Date:
Khadpe 2018.09.11 (A.M.BADAR J.)

Vina k 5/5

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.


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