1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.731 OF 2010 Shri Barku Hiraman Ahire )..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr. P. B. Naiknaware for the applicant. Mr. Y. S. Shinde APP for the State. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 13th April, 2010 PC 1 This is an application for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant Barku Hiraman Ahire is shown as an accused in C.R.No.I-8/2010 registered by the Vasai Police station, Dist. Thane for alleged offences under Sections 448, 452 & 323 read with 34 of IPC. The complaint has been registered on an information given by the complainant Sunita Barku Ahire. The gist of the complaint is that she was first married to a person by name Vijay Bagul on 10.1.1987. Her husband died six months after the marriage due to a heart-attack. It is her case that her 2nd marriage took place with the Barku Ahire the present applicant on 10.2.2007 and that she has a daughter by name of Gunjan aged 13 months from this marriage. It is her further case that after her marriage, they were residing on a rental agreement in the house of one Suresh Mali. Deposit amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid by the applicant and he was also paying monthly rent of Rs.2500/-. She was not aware that the applicant had married earlier and had falsely informed her that he was not married. That sometime in October-2008 her sister-in-law, mother-in-law and one other lady locked 2 her in the bed room and beaten and took away her husband. Since her husband was working in the Vasai Court, she made an inquiry and learnt that husband was on leave. At that time, she was pregnant. It is her contention that the applicant called her and asked not to go to the police. Thereafter the applicant reported on duty but did not return to his house. The complaint further narrates that on 21.6.2009 when she was at home the owner Suresh and his wife Rekha Mali and his brother Sanjay Mali entered the house and abused her and removed her from the house. It is her case that this incident occurred at the instance of the present applicant. It is her further case that during this scuffle, her Nokia mobile and mangalsutra fell down. It was therefore, her complaint to the police that she has been dis-housed by the landlord at the behest of the applicant. The offences are therefore, registered under Sections 452, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC. 2 In so far as dis-housing is concerned, it is quite clear that the landlord is said to have entered the house after the leave and license agreement period was over. Offence under Section 323 is bailable offence. The alleged offence under Section 504 pertain to insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. It is not clear how the applicant is involved with the said alleged offence under Section 504. Another important feature of this matter is that a grievance made by the applicant that the complainant has followed the same modus operandi in respect of another man by name Janardan. On the last date i.e 30.3.2010 the complainant Sunita Ahire was present in the Court. The applicant had produced certified copy of the private complaint said to have been filed by her under the name Sunita Janardhan Patole against one Pokle. The allegations in the said complaint were also similar. The complainant in that case was Janardhan Pokle who was a married person, started living with her and after she was pregnant, she was abandoned. This was shown to 3 the lady. She contended that Sunita Janardhan Patole was a different lady who resided in B-6, Tulsi Apartment. She stated that a different lady has filed this complaint. In this circumstances, I had directed Investigating officer to verify the fact. Investigating officer recorded the statement of the neighbour by name Lalita as also the statement of Janardhan Patole. Investigating officer also shown the photographs taken from the bank account of the complainant when she was Sunita Vijay Bagul and Janardhan Patole has identified the said photographs as of complainant. Investigating officer states that after he found that Sunita Ahire was the same lady who was the complainant Sunita Pokle, she has vanished and she was not meeting him thereafter. The complainant has now chosen to remain absent in this Court also. In these circumstances, there is a clear indication that the complaint is not speaking the entire truth. Taking into account this fact as also the nature of the allegation against the present applicant, I find that the only non-bailable offence is section 452 and the allegation in this behalf is against the landlord. In my view, investigation can proceed without custodial interrogation. It is therefore, directed that in the event of his arrest in pursuance of C.R.No.I-8 of 2010 registered by the Vasai police station, the applicant will be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount subject to the condition that he will report to the Investigating officer as and when called upon by him to do so in writing. The further condition is that the applicant will remain present on all dates before the trial Court unless exempted. In view of this order the interim order granted does not survive. Application stands disposed off. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 4 5