1 ABA-1432/18

IN THE  COURT OF SESSIONS, AT DINDOSHI
(BORIVALI DIVISION), GOREGAON, MUMBAI

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1432 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC05­005111­2018)
IN
C.R. NO.657/2018
(POLICE STATION, SAMTA NAGAR)
  

1. Mr. Jeet Lulla S/o. Bhagwandas )
Aged: 32 years, Occ: Unemployed, adult,  )
Hindu, domiciled at Jaipur.  )
2. Mr. Bhagwandas Lalwani )
Aged about 59, Occu: Retired )
3. Mrs. Monika Bhagwandas Lalwani )
Aged about 56, Occu: Housewife )
All residing at 676­Tikkiwallo Ka Rasta,  )
Indira Bazaar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ) ..Applicant(s)/
  Accused
                   Vs.
State of Maharashtra )
(Through Samta Nagar Police Station, in C.R. FIR )
No. 657/2018) ) ..Respondents

Adv. Ms. Purvi Shah for the applicants.
APP Mrs. Geeta Malankar  for the State.

            Coram : His Honour  Addl. Sessions Judge,       
         H.B. Gaikwad.    
                  (C.R.No.9)
               Date  :   22nd January, 2019.

ORAL ORDER

The   applicants   are   seeking   pre­arrest   bail   under   Section

438  of  the  Code of  Criminal  Procedure  in Crime No.657/2018, for
the offences punishable under Section 406 and 498A r/w Section 34 of
 2 ABA-1432/18

the Indian Penal Code, registered in Police Station, Samta Nagar.

2. It  is  the   case  of  the  prosecution  that, one Chandrika
Jeet Lulla is a legally wedded wife of applicant No.1. She was married
to applicant No.1  on 30.01.2013. Since  the year 2016, she is residing
separately from the applicants. From February, 2013 to February, 2015,
the applicants used to mentally and physically harass Chandrika,   for
petty reasons. They also took away the golden ornaments (streedhan)
of Chandrika. They also withdraw the amount from her account. In this
background,   Chandrika   lodged   the   report   against   the   applicants   in
Police Station, Samta Nagar on 10.10.2018. On the basis of said report,
aforesaid offences were registered against the applicants. 

3. Heard,   the   learned   Counsel   for   the   applicants   and   the

learned A.P.P. The learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that
there is delay in lodging the report, as the incident as alleged by the
informant took place in  between  February, 2013 till  February, 2015.
She argued that the informant has not lodged any report during this
period,   which   itself   shows   that   the   present   report   lodged   by   the
informant   is   afterthought.   She   also   pointed   out   from   the   copy   of
petition filed before the Family Court by applicant No.1 that after filing
of the petition for divorce, the informant has lodged the report only to
defend her in the said petition. She also submitted that the applicants
cannot be refused pre­arrest bail only on the ground that the streedhan
is to be recovered. According to her, this is not the forum to recover the
streedhan. She further submitted that the custody of the applicants is
not   required,   considering   the   allegations   levelled   against   them.   She
thus, submitted that the applicants being falsely involved in this case,
they be granted pre­arrest bail. 
 3 ABA-1432/18

4. As against this, the learned A.P.P. argued that the custody
of   the   applicants  is  required,  as  they  are  to  be   interrogated  and  the
property is to be recovered.  She further argued that the investigation is
in progress and without the custody of the applicants, the progress in
the investigation will be hampered and the possibility of tampering with
the prosecution evidence, cannot be ruled out at this stage. She, thus,
prayed for rejection of the applications.

5. Perused   the  police  papers  and   the  reply   (Exhibit­2).  The

perusal of the report shows that the incident alleged by the informant
took   place   between   February,   2013   to   February,   2015.   There   is
apparent delay in lodging the  report. The informant as stated in the
report, is residing separately since the year 2016. Even the informant
has not  taken  any immediate  action  while  residing separately  in the
year 2016.

6. It   is   seen   from   the   copy   of   the   petition   filed   before   the

Family   Court,   Jaipur   by   applicant   No.1   against   the   informant   that
applicant No.1 is claiming divorce from the informant. The filing of the
petition is not disputed by the informant, as she has herself admitted
the said fact in her report. The said petition appears to be filed several
months prior to the lodging of the report. It is seen that the present
report has been lodged after almost nine months from the filing of the
said petition. I find some substance in the submissions of the learned
counsel  for the  applicants that the  present report may be  by way of
afterthought.   Further   the   reply   of   the   prosecution   that   they   have   to
recover streedhan cannot be a ground to refuse pre­arrest bail to the
applicants, when otherwise they are entitled for the same.   Thus, I do
 4 ABA-1432/18

not   find   any   substance   in   the   objection   of   the   prosecution   that   the
custody   of   the   applicants   is   required,   as   they   have   to   recover   the
streedhan. 

7. Considering  the  matter  on  record, and  the   nature  of  the

allegations against the applicants, their custody is not warranted.  They
are   also   not   having   any   criminal   antecedents.   Nothing   is   also   to   be
recovered from them. The applicants have made out a prima­facie case
for granting pre­arrest bail.  In the circumstances,  I think  fit  to extend
the   relief   of   pre­arrest  bail  to   the   applicants   on   certain   conditions.   I
therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER

1. The Anticipatory Bail Application No.1432/2018 is  allowed. 

2. In     the     event     of   arrest of   applicant No.1­Jeet Lulla S/o.

Bhagwandas, applicant No.2­Bhagwands Lalwani and applicant
No.3­Monika  Bhagwandas Lalwani, in  connection  with   Crime
No.657/2018 registered  in Police Station, Samta Nagar, they be
released on executing personal bond in the sum of Rs.15,000/­
(Fifteen thousand rupees only) with a surety in the like amount
each, on the following  conditions :­

(i) They   shall   attend   the   Police   Station,   Samta   Nagar   on

second   and   fourth   Sunday   of   each   month,   from     11.00
a.m.   to   2.00   p.m.   and   shall   also   make   themselves
available   for   interrogation   by   the   police     as   and   when
required under written intimation to that effect, till  filing
of the charge sheet.
 5 ABA-1432/18

(ii) They   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   from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any Police Officer
and/or tamper with the prosecution evidence. 

(iii) They shall furnish their recent residential address proof on
record.

3. Inform the concerned Police Station, accordingly.

4. The Anticipatory Bail Application No.1432/2018 stands disposed
of, accordingly.

Date: 22.01.2019   (H.B.Gaikwad)
            Additional Sessions Judge,
 City Civil & Sessions Court,
  Borivali Division, Dindoshi
              Goregaon, Mumbai

Dictation given directly on computer on  :22.01.2019
Checked and signed by HHJ on                :22.01.2019

“CERTIFIED  TO  BE   TRUE  AND  CORRECT  COPY  OF  THE  ORIGINAL

SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
                                                                  
UPLOAD DATE                                           ATUL SURYAKANT BHOGTE
AND TIME : 25.01.2019  5.50 p.m.            NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
 6 ABA-1432/18

Name of the Judge (with Court Room No.) HHJ Shri H.B.Gaikwad  
(Court Room No.9)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 22.01.2019
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on  22.01.2019
Judgment/Order uploaded on 25.01.2019