( 1 )

aba320.22

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 320 OF 2022

1.

Avinash s/o. Tejrao Adhav,

..

Applicants

Age.32 years, Occ. Private job,

[ori.accused

R/o. Chintamani CHS MAHADA Colony,

Nos.1 to 3]

Chandvali Saki Naka, Mumbai.

2.

Pushpabai w/o. Tejrao Adhav,

Age. 51 years, Occ. Household,

R/o. As above.

3.

Tejrao s/o. Sheshrao Adhav,

Age.60 years, Occ. Private job,

R/o. As above.

Versus

State of Maharashtra

..

Respondent

Through Modha Police Station,

Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.

Mr.K.R. Doke, Advocate for the applicants.

Mr.A.M. Phule, APP for the respondent/State.

CORAM

:

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.

RESERVED ON

:

29.03.2022

PRONOUNCED ON :

19.04.2022

P.C. :-

01.

The applicants are apprehending their arrest in connection with

Crime No.46 of 2022 registered with New Mondha Police Station, Parbhani,

Dist. Parbhani, for the offences punishable under section 420 read with

( 2 )

aba320.22

section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

02.

Heard Mr. K.R. Doke, learned Advocate for the applicants and

Mr.A.M. Phule, learned APP for the respondent/State.

03.

It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the applicants that

applicant No.1 is the husband and applicant Nos.2 and 3 are the in-laws of the

informant. She has already lodged an FIR vide CR No.984 of 2020 with Saki

Naka Police Station, Mumbai. The charge-sheet has been filed with learned

66th Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri, Mumbai for the offences punishable

under sections 498-A, 494, 495, 323, 504 of the IPC. In the said FIR same

contentions, which have been taken in the present FIR, have been stated and

therefore it would amount to the doctrine of double jeopardy for the

applicants to undergo the process again. The offence under section 420 of the

IPC is absolutely not made out against the applicants. The marriage between

the informant and applicant No.1 was solemnized on 19.06.2020 at Parbhani

and the relationship is still subsisting. It is alleged that within 15 days of the

marriage, the informant came to know from Facebook message that applicant

No.1 was previously married and has child and there is no divorce between

( 3 )

aba320.22

them. When this part of the allegations are also stated as cruelty covered

under section 498-A of the IPC in the earlier proceedings, then the second

proceedings is not maintainable. She has also taken up proceedings under the

Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act with the same contentions.

The custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. The applicants

will abide by the terms of the bail.

04.

The learned Advocate for the applicant has relied on the decision

in Navnit K. Mehta Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2018 (3) ABR (Cri) 239,

wherein it has been stated that the second complaint filed against the

applicant on same set of fact and against same persons and therefore custodial

interrogation is not necessary. The grant of anticipatory bail in subsequent

complaint is proper.

05.

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application and submitted

that it was specifically stated by Saki Naka Police Station that offence under

section 420 of the IPC will not be entertained by them in view of the fact that

the offence of cheating has not taken place within the jurisdiction of Saki

Naka Police Station and she would be entitled to lodge FIR only for section

( 4 )

aba320.22

498-A and other sections. She was constrained to file application under

section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Thereafter, the offence under section 420 of the

IPC has been registered. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any bar for

the second FIR. The offences are different. Inspite of being married earlier,

applicant No.1 got married to the informant and applicant Nos.2 and 3 being

father and mother of applicant No.1, though having knowledge about the

earlier marriage of son, had taken part in the marriage between applicant

No.1 and the informant and