Bombay High Court

ABA/1645/2014 of NITIN SHALAK AGARWAL Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA on 31 December 2014

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1645 OF 2014 Nitin S. Agarwal …Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Mayur Salunke, for the Applicant. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the State. CORAM: G.S. PATEL DATED:

Agk

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYCRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1645 OF 2014

Nitin S. AgarwalVersusThe State of Maharashtra …Applicant …Respondent Mr. Mayur Salunke, for the Applicant.Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP, for the State.

Applicant.

PC:-

CORAM: G.S. PATELVACATION JUDGEDATED:31st December 2014

1. The Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with CR No. 216 of 2014 registered with the Dehu Road Police Station, Pune for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Applicant was married to a lady name Sonal. The Applicant has a profound hearing disability and an associated speech disability. Sonal, too, had an identical disability. They had one child Kushal, today about 10 years old.

2. The Petition describes how, perhaps because of these disabilities, Sonal had been away from her matrimonial home with her parents for a considerable amount of time. Indeed, the Applicant had to file a Petition for restitution of conjugal rights, after which Sonal started residing at her matrimonial home. For three or four years thereafter, the Applicant and Sonal appear to have lived in peace and harmony with their young son.

3. The tragedy in question occurred on 7th October 2014. It appears that the next morning Sonal committed suicide. Prima facie, there appears to be no indication of any marital distress or discord prior to this date.

4. Mrs. Mane, learned AGP vehemently opposes the application, saying that in a case such as this, no relief should be granted to the Applicant.

5. appropriate case for grant of relief.

In my view, considering all the circumstances, this is an

6.

Page 1 of 2

Hence, in the event of the Applicant being apprehended in connection with C.R. No. 216 of 2014, registered with the Dehu Road Police Station, Pune, he shall be enlarged on bail on a P.R.

Bond of Rs. 10,000/- with one solvent local surety in the like amount, subject to the following:

(a) The Applicant will report the Dehu Road Police Station, Pune as and when required.Station, Pune as and when required.

The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make (b)The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement or threat to any prosecution witness any inducement or threat to any prosecution witness and shall not in any manner tamper with the prosecution evidence and shall not in any way impede the investigation.

(c) Any observation/s made in this order shall not be construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case till the time of trial;construed as any finding or any expression of opinion on the merits of the case till the time of trial; (d)Any breach of these bail conditions shall result in cancellation of bail.cancellation of bail.

7. Application disposed of in these terms. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

Page 2 of 2

Loading citations and judicial treatment…

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead