NITIN BALIRAM SONAWANE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicants apprehending arrest in connection with the offence U/Secs 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short " IPC ") registered vide Crime No.196/2020 with City Police Station, Jalgaon preferred this application seeking anticipatory bail for the reasons set out in detail in the application.

(2.) Heard learned counselfor the applicants and learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the F.I.R. and the order passed by the learnedAdditional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon.

(3.) On due consideration of the submissions advanced in the light of overall facts of the case, I am of the view, the applicants deserve to be extended protection under Section 438 of the IPC. Except the offence U/Sec. 498-A of IPC all other offences are bailable. It appears from the record that there is matrimonialdispute between the applicant no.1 and his wife i.e. informant. The proceedings U/Sec. 125 of the Cr.P.C . has been presented in the Court of J.M.F.C. at Malegaon, Dist. Nashik. The applicant no.1 has filed proceedings U/Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights. By the complaint lodged the informant has alleged that her marriage with applicant no.1 was solemnized on 21.04.2017.After marriage, she went to cohabit with the applicant no.1 at Pune in the house of the applicant no.2 i.e. father- in-law. The applicant no.1 is alleged to be holding degree in Engineering and secured job as an Operator in the Police Department. He is posted at Mumbai. He used to come to stay at Pune in every week and used to stay one or two days with applicant. It is alleged that for a period of about 15 days from marriage, the informant was treatedproperly. Thereafter the accused persons subjected her to illtreatment and harassment. She was asked to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from her parents for purchasing Flat at Mumbai so as to stay along with applicant.