DAYANAND SHIVNARAYAN CHAUDHARI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. For the reasons stated in the Criminal Application No. 3259/2019, the same is allowed and the learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to assist the learned APP at the time of hearing of Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1228/2019. The application is accordingly disposed of.

(2.) The applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.331 of 2018 registered with Pundalik Nagar Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 328, 354, 323, 504 and Section 506 r/w 34 of IPC . Their applications with similar prayer bearing Bail Application No.1598 of 2019 came to be rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge-10, Aurangabad vide order dated 05.09.2019.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the allegations have been made mainly against co-accused Pawan, who is behind the bars. Learned counsel submits that applicant no.1 is 65 years of age. There are allegations in the complaint to the effect that way back in year 2016, applicant no. 1 - Dayanand has disorderly behaved with the informant, however, no specific instances are quoted. Though there are allegations about the demand of huge amount, there are no allegations about ill-treatment being extended to the informant on that count. As stated in the complaint itself after the settlement before Mahila Takrar Nivaran, Aurangabad, the informant started residing separately with co-accused Pawan and thereafter, no allegations have been made against the present applicants. On the other hand, it has been stated in the complaint that the applicants started behaving with the informant in orderly manner. The allegations have been made thereafter in respect of the incident in the month of September, 2018 onwards against co-accused Pawan. On the basis of those allegations, Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 66-E of the Information Technology Act, 2000 came to be added. However, those allegations have been made only against co-accused Pawan and the present applicants are not responsible in any manner so far as those allegations are concerned. Learned counsel submits that applicant no. 3 is residing in the State of Haryana and applicant nos. 1 and 2 are the aged persons. Applicant no. 2 is the mother-in-law, who is 62 years of age. In the given set of allegations, custodial interrogation of the applicants is not required. All the applicants may be released on anticipatory bail.