Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., on noting that the husband and wife cannot live together and there were constant quarrels between them, granted bail to the husband who was accused under the provisions of Dowry Prohibition Act and Penal Code, 1860.
The Bench remarked that,
Applicant’s custody will not really solve the issue. Even for the purpose of investigation his custodial interrogation is not necessary. He can be asked to co-operate with the investigating agency.
The applicant sought anticipatory bail for the offences registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 406, 506(2) of the Penal Code, 1860 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
The applicant’s wife had lodged an FIR, wherein she submitted that the applicant’s family wanted gold coins each for their family members, but the informant and her family refused to give those. After the marriage, the in-laws uses to talk about their demands and used to cause harassment to the informant. Her sister-in-law and father-in-law used to instigate the applicant and thereafter the applicant used to insult and humiliate the informant.
There are allegations that the Applicant had inflicted some wounds on himself to show that the informant had assaulted him.
Due to the above, the informant left and started residing with her sister. Later the applicant demanded to see his child and made the false allegation to the police.
In view of the above said, the FIR was lodged.
Analysis, Law and Discussion
High noted that the FIR shows how the applicant and the informant just cannot live together. There were constant quarrels between them.
There are complaints filed by the Applicant and the informant against each other.
Therefore, Bench held that the applicant’s custody would not really solve the issue as there are allegations and counter-allegations, which can only be decided during the trial.
- Applicant to be released on bail on his furnishing PR bond in the sum of Rs 30,000 with one or two sureties in the like amount.
- Applicant shall attend the Police Station concerned as and when called and shall cooperate with the investigation.
- Application stood disposed of.
[Shivek Ramesh Dhar v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 220, decided on 14-1-2022]
Advocates before the Court:
Resham I. Sahni, Advocate for the applicant
A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State/Respondent