JAYESH DHIRAJLAL BHANUSHALI v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Heard learned Advocate for the applicant, learned A.P.P.for the State and learned Advocate for the original complainant.

Perused application and the material available on record.

By this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C.,seeking anticipatory C.R.No.74 2007 registered Mulund Police Station offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 406,420 read with Section 34 the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 )

This is a matrimonial dispute between husband wife. The alleging husband committed offence Sections 498-A, 406, Section 34 the I.P.C. and, subsequently, Section 420 of the I.P.C. came to be added.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing applicant voluntarily submits applicant prepared Rs. 5,000/-per towards maintenance daughter, custody wife-complainant. He further submits allegations F.I.R. about the "Stridhan" are absolutely false and incorrect.

Learned counsel for the applicant has pressed service contents 7 F.I.R. demonstrate

FIR any, a author, "Stridhan", custody parents applicant. He further submits during search of his father’s house by police nothing was found. ( 3 )

In the above circumstances, he submits allegations "Stridhan" F.I.R. concocted false. However, he without prejudice contentions, instructions applicant-accused, submits applicant willing deposit Rs.1,50,000/- I.O. within a period today. All statements learned counsel applicant regard maintenance daughter @ Rs. 5,000/- deposit in the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with the Investigating Officer are taken on record.

So far as opening of the bank account by husband styling himself proprietor appears during period staying together husband wife. The withdrawals during period during staying together. The learned counsel applicant signatures complainant-wife reverse cheques contend withdrawals ( 4 ) complainant herself. All consent of wife. Any a matter evidence. However, stage, I useful purpose would be served by allowing custodial interrogation of the applicant accused.

The dispute essentially is between the husband wife. Both raised matrimonial dispute family court. intact. Still, matrimonial The husband allowed admittedly stands the joint name. The house seems to be in possession of the wife-complainant.

In the above view of the matter, I am inclined applicant Rs. 50,000/- sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the following terms and conditions: (a) he shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when called. (b) the applicant shall not, directly or ( 5 ) indirectly, inducement, threat promise person acquainted dissuade disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (c) the applicant shall not pressurise witnesses, employees drivers business of the complainant and that he shall co-operate with the Investigating agency. (d) The applicant shall not take possession vehicles possession complainant-wife, nor he shall make any transaction in the name of his wife.

The applicant is put on notice that on a report State violating conditions by him, mentioned herein, shall result in cancellation of this bail order.

terms. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C. DAGA,J.) (V.C.