ABA-919.2012 v. State of Maharashtra
Judgment
Shri Surel S. Shah for the Applicants. Ms U.V. Kejariwal, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 27, 2012 P.C:
#1. This is an application for anticipatory bail by relations of the victim who committed suicide on 15-8-2012 at Karjat. The applicants are residing in Latur and Parbhani Districts. The FIR itself shows that after the marriage the victim was residing at Ahmedpur in Latur District, possibly with applicant Nos.1, 2 and 3 and till then her matrimonial life was smooth. The allegation is that thereafter the victim shifted with her husband Rajesh to his place of employment at Karjat and there Rajesh asked the victim to get ABA-919.2012 a sum of `90,000/- to secure a job for applicant No.3 Sunil and thereafter the ill- treatment began. Since the applicants were not at all residing with the victim at the relevant time, the applicants' being in custody for the purpose of investigating into this crime may not be necessary and, therefore, in the event of the applicants arrest in C.R. No.43 of 2012 of Neral Police Station, District Raigad, the applicants be released on bail on their furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of `25,000/- each with one or more solvent sureties in the sum aggregating to `25,000/- per person.
#2. The applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and they shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the trial Court.
#3. This order shall remain in force till the trial is over with the only stipulation that if charge-sheeted, the applicants may furnish fresh bonds before the trial Court in view of the Judgment of the Supreme Court in ABA-919.2012 Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 SC
#4. The application accordingly stands
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.