1 Cri-A-5006-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5006 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant (Orig. complainant) Vs. Mr. Mukesh Kumar S/o Prakash Chandra Sonthalia ... Respondent (Orig. accused) Mr. Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Applicant - State. Ms. Fatima Sayed Nisar i/b. Mr. A.M.Saraogi, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Mukesh Kumar, respondent also present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 1st December, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP and the learned Counsel for the accused- respondent. 2. This Application is moved by the State for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the respondent by the learned Adhoc 1st Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, Borivali Division by the order dated 23.7.2010. 3. The prosecution case is that the respondent and the complainant Ruchi were married on 12.12.2009 at Mumbai and after the marriage, she went to 2 Cri-A-5006-10.sxw live with her husband at Lemont Apartment, Malad, Mumbai. It is contended that at the time of marriage, father of the complainant had given amount of Rs.5 lakh to the respondent for purchase of jewellery etc. for her. Inspite of that, immediately after she was taken to the husband's house after the marriage, the husband and his parents began to make a demand of Rs.15 lakh for purchase of a flat. Two days after the marriage, i.e. on 14.12.2009, she was taken to Cochin on the pretext of honeymoon by her husband. His parents also accompanied them at Cochin. She was not allowed to contact her parents on telephone or to receive their calls. On certain occasions, she was confined in the house and the house was locked from outside because the husband suspected her character. After some time, she was taken to Madras without intimation to her parents. Finally, the parents came and then she was brought to Mumbai. She lodged the report on 24.4.2010 about the ill-treatment by the husband and his parents as well as she made allegations that the amount of Rs.5 lakh which was given to the husband for purchase of jewellery have been misappropriated by him. On the basis of that report, Kurar Police Station registered the offence under Sections 498A, 406 read with Sec. 34 of IPC. The respondent moved an application for anticipatory bail apprehending arrest. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, granted it. 4. On perusal of the report lodged by Ruchi, wife of the respondent, 3 Cri-A-5006-10.sxw there appear some inherent contradictions and inconsistencies. However, in the opening sentence of the FIR, she has clearly stated that since 4.1.2010, she is living with her parents at Goregaon (East) which clearly shows that she is not living with her husband since 4.1.2010. However, in the last para of the said complaint, it is mentioned that on 30.3.2010, her father and mother went to Madras to meet her and at that time, she told them about the physical and mental torture by husband and his sister and then she was brought to Mumbai. If she is living with her parents and away from husband since 4.1.2010, there is no clarification why her parents went to Madras to take her back on 30.3.2010 and why she lodged the report for the first time on 24.4.2010. 5. It appears that that the trial Court had directed the respondent to appear before the I.O. on every Sunday and Wednesday between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. According to the respondent, he has been regularly attending on every Sunday and Wednesday and recently the trial Court has directed him to appear only on every Sunday. 6. It is contended by the learned APP that for recovery of the property of the complainant, it is necessary to make interrogation of the respondent. After taking instructions from the I.O., the learned APP concedes that the respondent 4 Cri-A-5006-10.sxw has been interrogated in this matter. Therefore, the contention that he was not available for interrogation is not correct. In fact, even now there is a direction by the trial Court to the respondent to appear before the I.O. on every Sunday. If the I.O. is really interested in interrogating him, he can still do that.In view of these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Sessions Court granting anticipatory bail. 7. In view of the facts and the above observations, the Application stands rejected. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)