SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Siddheshwar Tatyaba Waghmode vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 September, 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1990 OF 2018

Siddeshwar Tatyaba Waghmode ..Applicant

v/s.

The State of Maharashtra . ..Respondents

Mr. Kuldeep Patil i/b. Mr. Prashant Patil for the Applicant.
Mrs. J.S.Lohokare, APP for the State.
Mr. Sachin Pralhad Bhosale, Police Naik, Phaltan Police Stn., present.

CORAM : ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 27, 2018.

P.C.

1. This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by the

aforesaid applicant apprehending his arrest in C.R.No.309 of 2018

registered with Phaltan Gramin Police Station for the offences under

Section 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 of IPC.

2. Heard Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the applicant and Mrs.

Lohokare, the learned APP for the State. I have perused the records

and considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for

the respective parties .

pps 1 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:25:24 :::
916 aba 1990-18.doc

3. The applicant was married to Ambika in the year 2014. They

have two children aged about 12 years and 10 years respectively

from the said wedlock. The applicant is working in the police

department as police constable and was posted at Colaba Police

Station, Mumbai.

4. The wife and the children of the applicant were residing at the

matrimonial house at Phaltan which is stated to be 250 kms away

from Mumbai. Ambika, wife of the applicant consumed poison and

committed suicide on 6th August, 2018. Shalan Waghmode, mother

of Ambika lodged FIR on 7th August, 2018 alleging that her daughter

Ambika had committed suicide because of the cruelty meted out to

her daughter by the applicant and his family members.

5. As stated earlier, the records prima facie reveal that the

applicant herein was residing at Mumbai, while his wife Ambika was

residing at Phaltan. Said Ambika had committed suicide in her

matrimonial home at Phaltan. As on the date of the incident,

applicant was not present at Phaltan, and in fact he was on duty at

Colaba, Mumbai. Furthermore, the allegations leveled in the FIR do

not prima facie indicate that the applicant herein had provoked,

pps 2 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:25:24 :::
916 aba 1990-18.doc

induced or instigated his wife Ambika to commit suicide or that he

had aided or facilitated commission of suicide. There is no prima

facie material to show that the applicant had ‘abetted’ commission of

suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC.

6. Considering the nature of the allegations and the nature of the

material against the applicant, in my considered view, this is not a

case which justifies custodial interrogation. Furthermore, the

applicant is a police constable, and hence there are no chances of his

absconding or thwarting the course of justice. The applicant has no

criminal antecedents.

7. Considering the above facts and circumstances, the application

is allowed on following terms and conditions:-

(i) In the event of arrest of the applicant in Crime No. 309 of 2018

registered with Phaltan Gramin Police Station, the applicant be

released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

Twentyfive Thousand Only) with one or two solvent sureties in the

like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigation Officer.

(iii) The applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer for four

days from 1st October, 2018, and as and when required by the

pps 3 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:25:24 :::
916 aba 1990-18.doc

Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation and

interrogation.

(iv) The applicant shall provide his permanent as well as temporary

address, if any, and his contact details to the Investigating Officer.

(v) The applicant shall not change his residential address without

prior intimation to the Investigation Officer.

(vi) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or interfere

with the complainant and the other witnesses in any manner.

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

pps 4 of 4

::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:25:24 :::

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