5 ABA-858-21.doc

BDP-SPS-TAC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 858 OF 2021

MR. MANISH MATADIN SONTHALIA

….Applicant.

V/s

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

…..Respondent

Mr. A. M. Mundargi, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Rahul Karnik a/w Raj S.

a/w Ms. Jinal Tripathi for the Applicant.

Ms. Sharmila S. Kaushik, APP for the Respondent/State.

Mr. Virendra Pajwani a/w Mr. Yashesh Pajwani for the

Intervener/original complainant.

CORAM: NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE: DECEMBER 08, 2021

P.C.:-

1]

Applicant got engaged with the complainant on 29/6/2019 and

married on 10/7/2019. After matrimonial discord, a complaint came

to be lodged on 16/9/2020, alleging offence under Section 498A

(cruelty) which provides punishment of imprisonment for three years

and fine, Section 377 (unnatural offences) which provides punishment

of imprisonment for life i.e. 10 years and fine, Section 406 (criminal

breach of trust) which provides punishment of imprisonment for three

years and fine, Section 323 (simple hurt) which provides

punishment of imprisonment for one year and fine and Section 404

read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

1/7

BHARAT

DASHARATH

PANDIT

Digitally signed by

BHARAT

DASHARATH

PANDIT

Date: 2021.12.16

10:54:14 +0530

5 ABA-858-21.doc

2]

Mr. Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel for the Applicant, while

trying to make out a case for bail, would urge that Applicant-husband

is falsely implicated in crime. He has invited my attention to the

contents in the FIR, so as to claim that family members, including

married sisters-in-law are implicated as accused. Further contentions

are, in view of differences between mother-in-law and complainant,

NC was registered in the past. Mr. Mundargi would further claim that

the complainant herself has stated in the FIR that from January 2020,

Applicant was not staying with the complainant. He was sleeping in

the guest room. He would further invite attention of this Court to the

claim of the complainant that she, alongwith her maternal uncle, left

her matrimonial house on 23/8/2020. By inviting attention of this

Court to the orders passed on 29/10/2020, 15/12/2020, he would

claim that directions issued to the Investigating Officer are, till date,

not complied with. As such, according to him, false implication of the

Applicant can be inferred. Therefore Applicant is entitled for bail in

the event of his arrest.

3]

Learned APP assisted by Counsel for the complainant would urge

2/7

5 ABA-858-21.doc

that Applicant does not deserve protection from this Court, particularly

when he has divorced his two earlier wives and has taken undue

advantage of strong financial and social background of the

complainant. According to her, medical evidence supports the case of

the prosecution in the matter of offence lodged under Section 377.

Learned APP has specifically claimed that date-wise narrations are

made by the complainant as regards the offence committed by the

complainant and as such this Court should reject the prayer of the

Applicant for grant of pre-arrest bail.

4]

Learned Counsel for the complainant invited my attention to the

order dated 21/10/2020 passed in ABA Stamp No.2224 of 2020 in the

matter of Ebrahim Mohd. Iqbal Lakdawala vs The State of

Maharasthra, so as to claim that medical evidence is not required as

statement of the complainant is enough evidence. He further claimed

that in the matter of Mayank Pathak vs. State (Government of NCT of

Delhi) and Anr. reported in (2015) 11 SCC 798, Apex Court has

refused to grant pre-arrest bail in the offence punishable under Section

498-A. That being so prayer for bail is liable to be rejected. He would

substantiate the contention of learned APP by pointing out mode and

3/7

5 ABA-858-21.doc

manner in which offence is claimed to have been lodged and made out

from the attributions made in the FIR.

5]

Considered rival submiss