1

20-ABA.811-22.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

20 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.811 OF 2022

WITH APPLN/2082/2022 IN ABA/811/2022

NITA BHARATSING PARDESHI

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

...

Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Savale Amit S.

APP for Respondent-State : Mr. S. B. Narwade.

Advocate for Informant to assist APP : Ms. Rashmi S. Kulkarni.

...

CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.

DATE : 10.08.2022

PER COURT

:-

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the

learned APP for the respondent / State with learned counsel

Ms. Kulkarni, assisting the learned APP.

2.

The facts of the case have been elaborately discussed by

this Court in its order dated 13.07.2022 ; hence, to maintain

the brevity, those are not reproduced. It seems that both the

complainant as well as the applicant have lodged the report

against each other. On the report of the complainant, the crime

committing the sexual offence was registered against the

complainant. However, subsequently the said FIR was quashed.

The complainant himself has a case that the incident happened

2

20-ABA.811-22.odt

in the year 2019. He went to lodge the report but he did not

lodge the report. The complainant and the applicant have a

series of litigations and as well as allegations against each

other.

3.

The learned counsel for the applicant would submit that

this is nothing but a counter after the quashment of the FIR

lodged against the complainant. Everything was disclosed to

the complainant and he was knowing well that the

complainant is not divorcee. Therefore, interim protection may

be confirmed.

4.

Learned APP has strongly opposed the application. He

has referred to the statement of the landlord and vehemently

argued that there is a direct evidence against the applicant that

she has removed the articles from the room in the absence of

the complainant. He has also argued that the delay in lodging

the FIR is caused due to the FIR registered against the

complainant under Section 376 with other Penal sections. He

has argued that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is

necessary to recover the cash and articles which were owned

by the complainant.

5.

The inordinate delay has been orally explained in the

Court today. The complainant and the applicant are making

3

20-ABA.811-22.odt

allegations against each other. The complainant had been to

the Police Station in the year 2019-2020 to lodge the report.

However, the reason best known to him why he has not lodged

the report. The delay in lodging the FIR appears not

convincing. The incident happened in the month of November

2019 and the complainant was knowing about it. The

complainant and the applicant were living together in a rented

room. They had some discords. Therefore, both of them have

lodged the report agianst each other.

6.

Considering the facts of this case, this Court is of the

view that the custodial interrogation would not serve the

purpose. Hence, the following order :

O R D E R

(i)

Application is allowed.

(ii)

The interim protection granted by this Court by an

order dated 13.07.2022 is confirmed on the

condition that the applicant shall attend the Police

Station on a written notice by the Investigating

Officer.

(iii) Criminal Application No.2082 of 2022 is allowed.

(S. G. MEHARE, J.)

...

vmk/-