ABA218-11.sxw jpc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 218 OF 2011 Mrs. Neha Varun Gupta .. Applicant Versus 1) The State of Maharashtra (Through Trombay Police Station) 2) Varun Surenderkumar Gupta 3) Surenderkumar Gupta 4) Mrs. Nirmal Surenderkumar Gupta .. Respondents Mr. Silvin Kale a/w Mr. Sanghraj Gaikwad for the applicant Smt. P. P. Shinde, APP for the State. Mr. P. N. Kamat, i/by Mr. Milnd B. Nar for respondent nos. 2 and 4. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 13th September, 2011. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The applicant is wife of respondent no.2. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of respondent no.2. The applicant was married to respondent no.2 on 18th January, 2009 and according to her, she was driven out from house by her husband and parents in-laws on 24th November, 2009, when she was in advanced stage of pregnancy. On 27th November, 2009, she gave birth to a female child. According to her, before she was driven out from the house, her husband had asked to fetch an amount of Rs.25 lacs from her 1 ABA218-11.sxw parents for purchase of industrial plot. She also alleged that on two different occasions, when they had been to Lonawala and Kerela for tour, all the expenses were made by her husband from her credit card. According to her, in December, 2009, her sister-in-law instigated her husband to desert the applicant. In April, 2010, respondents had come to her parents place and at that time they held her daughter in such a way that it will be risky to her life. In May, 2010, she had been to police station to lodge a report. At that time, her husband alleged that she had 4/5 boyfriends. In October, 2010, she was advised that she would not get justice and finally she lodged a report with Police on 8th November, 2010, on the basis of which, Crime No. 367/2010 was registered on 25th November, 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 406, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Anticipatory bail was granted to the respondents by the Sessions Court and by this application, the applicant seeks cancellation of the anticipatory bail. The learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that the applicant had previously filed Criminal Application No. 203 of 2011 for cancellation of anticipatory bail. that application was also rejected as none had appeared for the applicant when the matter was called for hearing. The application for restoration of Application No. 203/2011 was also rejected. According to the learned counsel for the applicant, previous application was not 2 ABA218-11.sxw decided on merit. In fact, once the application is rejected for want of prosecution or in default, the applicant should not be allowed to file second application on the same ground. Assuming that the applicant may be allowed to file similar application because her earlier application was not heard on merit, after going through the merits also, I find no substance for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted by the Sessions Court. 4. The report was lodged with the police about one year after the applicant had left her husband's house or she was driven out from the house. In the First Information Report, list of ornaments which were given to the applicant by her parents at the time of marriage, is given. It appears from the Panchanama dated 6th December, 2010 that most of the articles were recovered and were seized from the house of the accused and they have been returned to the applicant. Major articles which are not returned to her are gold Necklace with ear rings and gold chain. Learned counsel for the respondents makes statement that as per his instructions, these articles are not with the respondents, but in case these articles are still lying in house, they will return them to the applicant. 5. Taking into consideration the recovery of most of the articles from the house of the accused on 16th December, 2012, in my opinion, custodial interrogation is not required and therefore, no purpose will be served by cancellation of the anticipatory bail. 3 ABA218-11.sxw 6. In view of the above, the application for cancellation of bail stands rejected. However, the applicant shall be at liberty to move the trial Court for giving direction to the respondents to return the said article and for that purpose, an appropriate order may be passed by the learned Magistrate after hearing both the parties. ( J.H. BHATIA, J. ) 4