* 1 * ABA.238.2011 13.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 238 OF 2011 Suyogsingh R. Parihar .... Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Mrs. Vijay Parihar, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. S.V. Marwadi, Advocate for the original complainant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 13th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. This is the second application for anticipatory bail by the applicant in connection with C.R. No.I-3 of 2011 registered with Palghar police station under Sections 498A, 406, 423, 504, 506 and 34 Indian Penal Code at the instance of his wife, his first application having been dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Palghar by the order dated 23rd February, 2010 2. The complaint of the first informant is that within a month after the marriage, the applicant started demanding a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- from her parents for purchasing a flat in Mumbai. This demand was made despite several valuable articles given at the time of * 2 * ABA.238.2011 13.7.2011 marriage. The articles allegedly given were Rs.51,000/-, Rs.6,00,000/- along with jewellery and other articles worth Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- in cash, gold chain weighing 18 gms., 3 gold rings, 4 gold bangles and Hyundai I10 car. When the first informant was unable to satisfy the demand, she was subjected to harassment and assault. Finally on 21st December 2010, she was driven out of the house. 3. On 18th April 2011, when the application was partly heard, the learned counsel for the applicant made a statement that the applicant is ready to deposit all the articles mentioned in the affidavit of the first informant andone gold bindi. He also showed willingness to deposit a sum of Rs.1,00,001/-, which according to him was paid towards shagun and to hand over the car. Therefore, the necessary directions came to be given by the Court. As regards the claim of payment of Rs. 7,51,000/- at the time of marriage, the first informant was directed to explain the source of that amount by filing an affidavit. Accordingly the first informant has filed her affidavit stating the manner in which her father had raised the amount. By the same order, the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail. Pursuant to the directions given, the applicant has deposited the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in the trial Court which is directed to be invested in fixed deposit. The first informant has taken custody of the car. * 3 * ABA.238.2011 13.7.2011 4. The applicant, contends that, the entire complaint made is false. He denies that any amount or any ornaments were given to the first informant at the time of the marriage except for the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- at the time of shagun. According to him, most of the ornaments had infact been purchased by his mother and given to the aplicant during marriage. There is however no dispute about gift of the car. 5. Mr. Marwadi, the learned counsel for the respondent, strongly opposes the application submitting that the applicant has abused the liberty granted to him by the order dated 18th April, 2011. The first informant was working with ICICI Bank Ltd. The applicant started writing e-mails to her superiors making various allegations. Mr. Marwadi, produces a copy of the e-mail dated 31st May, 2011 addressed to the Senior Management Desk, ICICI Bank Ltd making allegations against the first informant that she had misused her position in the bank and fradulently withdrawn money from the applicant’s Account. It is the grievance of the first informant that there were several such e- mails sent by the applicant after the ad-interim order of anticipatory bail. The mother of the applicant, who is an advocate by profession started visiting the office of the first informant. The consequence of the visits of the mother and the e-mails sent by the applicant was that * 4 * ABA.238.2011 13.7.2011 the first informant had to leave the job. The mother of the applicant who is also representing the applicant in this application as his advocate admits her visit to the office of the first informant but claims that there was only one visit and that too was in the month of February. 6. Mr. Marwadi, has next produced copy of the application for anticipatory bail filed by the applicant in the Sessions Court wherein serious allegations as regards the character of the first informant have been made. 7. Taking into consideration the facts of the case, the affidavits filed by the first informant and the conduct of the applicant, in my opinion, this is not the case for exercise of powers of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the application is rejected. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 5 * ABA.238.2011 13.7.2011