1 ABA: 195/2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.195 OF 2011 Rakhi Gattani nee Patwa .... Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Subhash Jha i/by M/s Law Global for for applicants. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th July, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to respondents no. 1 to 4 vide its order dated 16th November 2010 passed by the Sessions Court. The applicant is the wife of respondent no.1. Respondents no. 2 and 3 are her parents-in-law and respondent no. 4 is the relative of the husband of applicant. The applicant is a well educated woman holding M.B.A. degree. She was married to respondent no.1 in the year 2001. After marriage, she started residing with her husband at Mumbai. 2. In the year 2010, the applicant filed a private complaint under Section 312, 498-A, 406 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. By the 2 ABA: 195/2011 order dtd. 29th September 2010, the learned Magistrate directed investigation in the complaint under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. resulting into registration of C.R. No.8 of 2010 for the purpose of investigation. Respondents then filed application for anticipatory bail before the Sessions Court, which came to be allowed. The Sessions Court has noted in its order that the applicant is well educated woman. Respondent No.1 has filed divorce petition against the applicant in the Family Court of Indore. The applicant has filed written statement in the proceedings. Pursuant to the interim order passed in the proceedings, respondent no.1 has been paying interim alimony to the applicant. He also taking care of her membership charges of club and travel by first from Indore to Mumbai. 3. The applicant alleges harassment at the hands of the respondents. Most of the instances of harassment are minor complaints i.e. the comments passed by the respondents on the expenditure by the father of the applicant, at the time of the marriage in the year 2001, compulsion in giving gifts to the daughter-in-law of respondent no.4 alleged deprieval of the applicant by respondent no.3 of basic necessities like medicines, soap etc. Considering the nature of the allegations made, as has been rightly observed by the Sessions Court, the custodial interrogation of the respondents is not 3 ABA: 195/2011 at all required. The only allegation which is serious is that the applicant was forced to undergo abortion. It is the case of applicant that on 22nd September 2008 her in-laws forced her to undergo abortion on account of some apprehension as regards the health of the child. Undisputedly at the relevant time, the parents of the applicant were present with her to support her. The applicant had not filed any complaint as regards the forcible abortion even if this allegation is accepted for it s face value the entire evidence relating ’ to that would be with the applicant herself. Mr. Jha then points out that the sridhan of the applicant is still with the respondents. The Sessions Court has observed in the order that the sridhan of the applicant is safe and even the investment of Rs.14.00 lacs in the National Saving Certificates and Savings Bank Accounts of the applicant are intact and they are not touched by the respondents. In that circumstance, the applicant can always approach the family Court for return of her Sridhan. Mr. Jha then expressed apprehension of the observations by the Sessions Court in the order at paragraph 4 that the complaint alleged by the applicant in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate is purely an afterthought of the complainant. He submits that these observations coming from the Sessions Court which is a higher court for the Court of 4 ABA: 195/2011 Metropolitan Magistrate may affect the final hearing of the proceedings. The apprehension is obviously based upon unsupported presumption as the observations of the Sessions Court is nothing but prima facie view of the matter. The learned Magistrate on conclusion of the trial is bound to arrive at his independent decision on the basis of the evidence produced before him. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)