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 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3400 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3400 OF 2008 CRI.APPLICATION NO.3400 OF 2008 Rajendra Kumar Birendra Mishra, Applicant. Vs The State of Maharashtra, Respondent. Mr.Subhash Jha i/b Law Global for the applicant. Mr K.V.Saste, for the State. Dr.Ramakant Pande, for the respondent-complainant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J. DATE : 07/10/2008 DATE : 07/10/2008 DATE : 07/10/2008 PC: PC: PC: 1. Heard Mr.Jha, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr.Saste, learned APP, for the State and Mr.Pande, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-246 of 2008 of Vashi Police Station, New Mumbai. The said crime has been registered against the applicant and four others, consisting of his parents, brother and brother’s wife, for having committed an offence punishable under sections 498(A), 406(ii), 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of IPC. 3. It appears that the complainant and the applicant were married on 26.4.2007 and she lived with the applicant and her in-laws till 10.8.2008. FIR came to be lodged on 11.8.2008. I have perused the FIR. The allegations made against the applicant and other accused are identical. It is alleged that all the three subjected her to cruelty with a view to coercing her and her parents to meet the unlawful demands of monies. Trial Court has already granted anticipatory bail to the other accused, i.e. the in-laws vide order dated 20.9.2008. Admittedly, both, the applicant and the complainant are well educated and are having good jobs. The applicant is a Manager in IDFC Ltd, which is a sister concern of HDFC Ltd and the complainant is a senior finance Manager in Kotak Mahendra. The complainant in her complaint has not even spared the brother of the applicant and his wife, who admittedly do not live in Maharashtra. She has stated that they also threatened her on telephone for fulfilling the unlawful demands made by her husband and the in-laws. It appears that the in-laws and the complainant had a locker in their joint names. According to the husband, she had taken away all the jewellery by operating the said locker behind the back of the in-laws. I do not wish to express any opinion on the claim made by either of the parties in respect of Stridhan, which was lying in the said locker. Insofar as other articles are concerned, they have already been collected by the complainant. It appears, on the date of alleged incident of beating there was a scuffle in which the applicant and the complainant, both, sustained some injuries. The injuries sustained by them appear to be simple and superficial in nature. Keeping that in view and considering overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant. 4. In the event of arrest, the applicant to be enlarged on bail in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties to make the said amount, subject to the condition that the applicant shall report to the concerned police station every alternate day between 7 and 8 pm till 19.10.2008 and thereafter on every alternate Saturday, i.e. 2nd and 4th Saturdays, till filing of the chargesheet or for a period of 90 days from the date of his formal arrest, whichever is earlier. . 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 without being influenced by the observations made in this order. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)