* 1 * ABA.521.2011 20.7.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2011 Irfan Abdul Haq Gori and Ors. ..... Applicants V/S. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent ALONGWITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 361 OF 2011 [FOR INTERVENTION] Irfan Abdul Haq Gori and Ors. ..... Applicants V/S. The State of Maharashtra ...... Respondent AND Mrs. Shabnam Irfan Ghori .... Intervenor/ Orig.complainant Smt. Seema Singh and Mr. Indris Javed, Advocate for the applicants. Mr. Jahangir A. Khan, Advocate for the Intervenor-Orig.complainant in Cri.Appln. 361/2011. Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for the State-respondent. CORAM :- Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. 20th July, 2011. P.C. :- 1. The application for intervention filed by the complainant-wife is allowed. * 2 * ABA.521.2011 20.7.2011 This application for anticipatory bail is by the husband, parents-in-law, sister- in-law (husband’s sister), sister-in-law (wife of brother-in-law) and married sister-in-law (husband’s sister). Applicant no.6-the married sister-in-law is the resident of Rajasthan. The complainant married applicant no.1 on 29th May, 2009 and started residing in the matrimonial home at Mira Road. According to the applicants, she resided there only for about 20-25 days. She left the house on 6th June, 2009 with her valuables including gold, silver ornaments and started started residing with her parents at Santacruz. 2. It is the complaint of the wife that all the applicants including the married sister residing at Rajasthan were demanding that she gets a s um of Rs.15,00,000/- from her parents and since the demands were not met, she was being harassed. It is also alleged that after the marriage, all the applicants started residing with her husband and applicants no.3 to 6 starting passing comments about household work and had also assaulted her for flimsy reasons. Undisputedly, the complainant had left the house on 6th June, 2009. Thereafter, when the attempts at reconciliation failed, it was decided that the marriage would be dissolved by Khula”. Accordingly, on 20 “ th November, 2010 Khulanama was kept before the Mufti of Khar Jama Masjid. But on that day, the wife did not remain present. Therefore, applicant no.1 gave Talaq to the wife. The wife was then informed of the Talaq. Thereafter, the complaint * 3 * ABA.521.2011 20.7.2011 herein came to be filed on 12th April, 2011. The complaint is registered with Santacruz police station. Perusal of the statement accompanying the FIR shows that not a single incident of illtreatment or harrassment mentioned therein has taken place at the place of residence of her father. Every alleged incident has taken place at Mira Road. In that case, the police station at Santacruz would have no jurisdiction to investigate into the complaint. 3. It has been the contention of the applicants that the wife has infact taken away all her gold and silver ornaments. All other household articles given to her at the time of marriage have been returned by the applicants after registration of the complaint and the panchanama therefor was drawn on 9th June, 2011. The learned counsel for the wife who seeks to intervene in the matter disputes the claim of the applicants that the ornaments were taken away by the complainant at the time she left the house. Even if that is so, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is obvious that no custodial interrogation of the applicants is required. Hence, the applicants can be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, the order. O R D E R (i). In the event of arrest of applicant no.1 in C.R. 218 of 2011 registered with Santacruz Police Station, he be released on bail in the sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. Thirty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like * 4 * ABA.521.2011 20.7.2011 amount. (ii). In the event of arrest of applicants no.2 to 6 in the same C.R., they be released on bail in the sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten Thousand only) each with one or two sureties in the like amount. (ii). The applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer as and when required. They shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him for disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer. The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]