1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1187 OF 2009 Rishi Omprakash Didwania .. Applicant. Vs. 1. Vijayshree Rishi Didwania .. 2. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.Rajendra Sorankar for the applicant. Mrs.S.D.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. Mr.Sanjeev Kadam i/b O.P.Pandey for the original complainant. Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 2ND JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the complainant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.27 of 2009 of Dindoshi Police Station, Mumbai. The crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 406, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC. 3. The basic allegation in the complaint is that the applicant and his mother subjected the complainant to harassment with a view to coercing her to fulfill their demand of monies and articles and in the alternative to leave the matrimonial home 2 permanently. It is also alleged that Stridhan has been retained by the applicant, which the applicant has stoutly denied. A marriage of the applicant and the complainant was solemnised on 16th March, .2004. The complainant left matrimonial home on 23rd January, 2005. The instant crime has been registered against the applicant on 11th February, 2009. There is no dispute that the applicant filed divorce petition in March 2006, while the complainant filed petition for restitution of conjugal rights in May, 2006. Several efforts at all stages for settlement were made. Both, the applicant and the complainant, had approached this court seeking transfer of their petitions and the petitions filed by them came to be dismissed. During pendency of those petitions several efforts were even made, by this court to settle all the disputes between the parties. Mr.Sorankar, submits that after having failed in all efforts to go back to the matrimonial home the complainant has lodged the FIR making allegations of harassment for monies. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary and hence I am inclined to grant this application for anticipatory bail. Hence the following order: In the event of arrest, applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one or two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the conditions 3 incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every Saturday between 5 pm and 7 pm for a period of two months and thereafter as and when called. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)