Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
M.S. Karnik, J.
Somnath Sanjay Bhosale – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 2007 of 2022
Decided On : 20-01-2023
Pre-arrest Bail - Misrepresentation in Marriage - The court granted interim protection to the applicants apprehending arrest in connection with a crime involving misrepresentation by the bridegroom and the applicants regarding his occupation and assets at the time of marriage. Conditions were imposed to protect the liberty of the applicants until the application is heard finally, including furnishing a PR bond, reporting to the Investigating Officer, and refraining from circulating photographs and pre-wedding shoot.
Fact of the Case:
The applicants sought pre-arrest bail in connection with a crime involving misrepresentation by the bridegroom and the applicants regarding his occupation and assets at the time of marriage. The court had granted interim protection to the applicants and imposed conditions to protect their liberty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that custodial interrogation of the applicants was not required as they had cooperated with the investigation. The court also put the applicants on notice not to intimidate, threaten, or interact with the complainant and her husband.
Issues: The issues involved misrepresentation in marriage, compliance with conditions imposed by the court, and the complainant's concerns regarding interference and intimidation by the applicants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court decided that the nature of accusations did not warrant custodial interrogation, and the applicants' cooperation with the investigation was noted. The court also imposed strict conditions on the applicants to refrain from intimidating or interacting with the complainant and her husband.
Final Decision: The court granted the applicants pre-arrest bail and disposed of the anticipatory bail application, with the interim application also being disposed of.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP.
2. This is an application for pre-arrest bail. The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with C.R. No.396 of 2022 dtd. 07/06/2022 registered with Akluj Police Station for offence punishable under Sec. 420, 406, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
3. By an order dtd. 25/07/2022, while granting interim protection, this Court has passed the following order.
"1. The applicants are apprehending their arrests in connection with a crime registered with Akluj Police Station, Dist. Solapur under Sec. 420, 406, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on alleged misrepresentation by the bridegroom and the applicants.
2. At the time of fixation of marriage, it was told by the parents of the applicant, who is bridegroom, that the applicant is working as a Headmaster and having around 200 Acres of land as well as 4 to 5 JCB machines. It is also alleged that he represented himself as a Government Contractor.
3. Ultimately, it was found that the applicant no.1 has not only concealed his real age which is 38 years, but it was shown that he was 30 years old at the time of Mangal Parinaya Ceremony. The parents of the bride spent around Rs.2,97,240.00 and have purchased cloths, A.C. firdge, T.V. etc.
4. One of the co-accused has already granted protection by this Court.
5. Learned APP submits that the applicants might misuse the photographs and pre-wedding shoot by making it viral, which would affect the future prospects of the bride and, therefore, conditions needs to be imposed to co-operate with the Investigating Agency.
6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, liberty of the applicants needs to be protected till the application is heard finally by imposing some conditions and restrictions.
(i) In the event of the arrest of the applicants in C.R. No. 396/2022 registered with Akluj Police Station, Tal. Malshiras, Dist. Solapur under Sec. 420, 406, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC and Sec. 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the applicants be released on furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs.25,000.00 with one surety each in the like amount.
(ii) The applicants shall furnish all material including Mobile hands-set, photographs and material in the form of prewedding shoot, to the Investigating Officer immediately. (iii) The applicants shall report to the Investigating Officer on every Tuesday and Friday between 10.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.
(iv) The applicants shall not tamper with the prosecution witnesses and evidence or shall not extend threats or inducement to any of the witnesses.
(v) The applicants shall not circulate or make viral, photographs and pre-wedding shoot, either by themselves or through anyone else.
(v) Breach of any of the conditions would result in vacation of interim protection."
4. The applicants have accordingly co-operated with the investigation. Learned APP on instructions says so. All conditions imposed by this Court have been complied with. A pen-drive, a mobile and 4 photographs have already been handed over to the investigating officer.
5. In my opinion, looking at the nature of accusations, the custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required as the applicants have co-operated with the investigation.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant has already performed marriage and the applicant no.1 is unnecessarily interfering and intimidating the complainant. The applicants are put to strict notice not to intimidate, threaten or interact in any manner with the complainant.
7. It is made clear that the applicants shall not in any manner try to establish any contact with the complainant or her husband. It is open for the complainant to resort to appropriate steps including the application for cancellation of this anticipatory bail if the applicants fail to abide by these conditions.
8. The applicants undertake that they will no
Anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 438 when allegations do not warrant preemptive detention, provided conditions to protect ongoing investigations are set.
The court may grant anticipatory bail based on the nature of allegations and the circumstances of the case, including the status of co-accused.
The court established that anticipatory bail can be granted when accused face potential false implications, especially in domestic disputes.
Anticipatory bail can be granted in serious allegations, balancing the gravity of charges with the rights of the accused under specific conditions.
The court rules on granting pre-arrest bail based on the absence of substantial evidence to substantiate criminal allegations.
A charge of sexual assault based on a false promise of marriage cannot be sustained when the accused's prior marriage is still subsisting, and such circumstances, alongside a consensual relationship ....
The court emphasized that serious allegations of sexual offenses warrant thorough investigation, and anticipatory bail is denied when the gravity of the accusations and potential for justice obstruct....
The absence of injury marks in the postmortem report and the lack of commenting upon the merits of the case were crucial in granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
Grant of anticipatory bail - matter is being settled between the husband, wife and her in-laws, as such, the present applicants be granted the privilege of anticipatory bail.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
