934-aba-701-22

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.701 OF 2022

Jyoti Chandulal Kothari @

Jyoti Shivaji Jadhav

… Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

Through Police Station Officer,

Jamner Police Station,

District Jalgaon.

… Respondent

.…

Mr. Satyajit S. Bora, Advocate for the Applicant

Ms. V.N. Patil Jadhav, APP for Respondent / State

….

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.

DATE : 09^th JUNE, 2022

PER COURT:-

.

The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection

with C.R.No.0041 of 2021 registered at Jamner Police Station,

Dist. Jalgaon on 11.02.2021, under sections 406, 420, 506 r/w 34

of the Indian Penal Code.

2.

Heard Mr. Satyajit Bora, learned counsel for the applicant

and Ms. V.N. Patil Jadhav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent /State.

3.

The F.I.R. is lodged by one Bhavana Lalwani. She has stated

that, her elder son was suffering from some speech deficiency and

therefore there were difficulties in getting him married. The

1 of 5

934-aba-701-22

2

informant, her family members and their relative searched for

suitable match. For that purpose they were ready to spend money.

The F.I.R. is goes on to mention that the applicant’s daughter

Pooja’s proposal for marriage with the informant’s son, was

brought by a relative. After initial discussions, Pooja’s parents i.e.

applicant and her husband demanded Rs.6,00,000/- for the

marriage. Their demand was met. The amount was paid to the

applicant and her husband. The marriage took place on

09.12.2020. The applicant’s daughter Pooja stayed with her

husband till 15.12.2020. After that she was taken to her paternal

house. On 21.12.2020, Pooja was brought back to her matrimonial

house by the informant’s elder son Bhavesh. On 29.12.2020,

Pooja’s father came to the informant’s house. He told the informant

that Pooja’s grandfather was seriously ill. He wanted to see Pooja.

On this representation, Pooja went back to her paternal house.

While going, she took away her suitcase and baggage. On the next

day, the informant did not find her ornaments. She realised that

Pooja had taken away the ornaments. Their common relatives

asked Pooja’s father to send her back. He told them that he would

bring her back. However, neither Pooja was sent nor ornaments

were returned. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged.

2 of 5

934-aba-701-22

3

4.

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that it is quite

obvious that Pooja had left the matrimonial house because of

matrimonial discord and therefore no offence either under section

406 or under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is made out.

The applicant is not shown to have played any role in the entire

episode. She being mother of Pooja is falsely implicated in this

offence.

5.

Learned A.P.P. opposed this application. She submitted that

it was a well planned and executed conspiracy. The informant was

party to the conspiracy. She was present when money was handed

over to her and to her husband and thereafter the marriage was

performed. Pooja returned to her paternal house. The informant

had suffered monetary loss besides loss of reputation. Therefore,

anticipatory bail should not be granted to the applicant.

6.

I have considered these submissions. The F.I.R. is lodged

against the applicant alleging that she had accepted the money

along with her husband. In the F.I.R., all the allegations are mainly

against the applicant’s daughter Pooja. According to the F.I.R.,

Pooja had stayed in the matrimonial house from 09.12.2020 to

15.12.2020. Thereafter, again she came back on 21.12.2020 and

after that she left the house on 29.12.2020. Thus, it appears that

3 of 5

934-aba-701-22

4

the applicant’s daughter did stay with the informant for a few days.

In the entire episode, there are hardly any serious allegations

against the applicant. Therefore, whether this episode is a result a

conspiracy, will have to be decided during the trial. However,