1 1 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1642 OF 2009 Manohar Teoomal Joukani .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Rajesh Sharma and Girish Kulkarni for the applicant. Mr.Abadh Ponda with Ms.Sapana Rachure i/b T.N.Tripathi & Co. for original complainant/Intervenor. Mr.Y.S.Shinde A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009. DATED : 22ND APRIL, 2009. P.C.: . Heard Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, Mr.Ponda, learned counsel for the original complainant and Mr.Shinde, learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.143 of 2009 of Khar police station. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and others for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 406 and 498-A of IPC. 3. The prosecution case is that the complainant - Payal was subjected to harassment with a view to 2 2 2 coercing her and her parents to meet unlawful demand of monies. Mr.Ponda, learned counsel for the original complainant, at the outset, invited my attention to the FIR and the order passed by the Sessions Court and contended that the complaint is mainly based on three allegations. Firstly, the applicant, who is a father-in-law of the complainant, started asking sexual favour from the complainant immediately from the second day of her marriage. He submitted, while watching pornographic films, the applicant asked the complainant to make him happy, secondly, he submitted that though some ornaments were returned to the complainant on 16th January, 2009, still there are other ornaments worth Rs.17 Lakhs are with the applicant and her husband and, thirdly, the fact of the husband’s affair with some lady in Australia was suppressed at the time of marriage and even thereafter by the applicant. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant on the other hand submitted that the complainant stayed in the applicant’s house for hardly 15 days after her marriage. He submitted, though the marriage was registered on 22nd July, 2008, the marriage as per the vedic rights was performed in November, 2008, and immediately thereafter she left for Australia. He then pointed out, the complainant thereafter returned from Australia on 6th January, 2009. When she returned from Australia, she straight 3 3 3 way went to her parents house and did not come to stay with the applicant and his wife i.e. her in-laws. 4. I have perused the entire material placed before the court. From the facts, as disclosed in the FIR and other documents, it appears that the marriage was performed on 22nd July, 2008, and sometime in the middle of November, 2008, the complainant went to Australia to stay with her husband. From Australia she returned on 6th January, 2009. On 16th January, 2009, the applicant returned certain jewellery to the complainant in the presence of Notary, when in turn, she issued a receipt of the jewellery handed over by the applicant to her. She did not make any grievance about remaining jewellery, which the applicant and her husband allegedly retained with them. Thereafter on 19th March, 2009, for the first time a written complaint was made in which the allegations in nature of character assassination were made by the complainant against the applicant. Till this date, she did not make any grievance of the so called sexual favour demanded by the applicant, either to her parents or to the police. Prima facie I find it difficult to believe the allegations made by the complainant against the applicant regarding sexual favours. It may be true, there was suppression from the husband, and even the parents for that matter, of 4 4 4 his affair of with some lady in Australia, but that by itself, in my opinion, cannot be a ground for rejecting this application for anticipatory bail. I am satisfied that no custodial interrogation of the applicant in the present case is necessary. Hence the following order: . In the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount subject to the conditions stipulated in sub-section (2) of section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further, the applicant is directed to report to the concerned police station on every alternate day between 6 pm and 7 pm till 10th May, 2009, and thereafter on every alternate Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the charge sheet, whichever is earlier. The application is disposed of. . While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.) (D.B.Bhosale, J.)