Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Sunil Namdevrao Thombre (Bavdhankar), Namdev Saibu Thombre, and Chabutai Namdev Thombre, filed an appeal against the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Satara, rejecting their application for anticipatory bail in Crime No.241/2018 registered at Police Station Lonand. The crime was registered at the instance of respondent No.2, Manda Thombre @ Vankhede, alleging offences under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The appellants contended that the FIR was false and motivated because appellant No.1 had previously lodged a criminal case (Crime No.85/2015) against members of the prosecuting party. They argued that on the day of the alleged incident, appellant No.1 was present in court at Khandala and had filed an application for cancellation of bail of the informant's husband, expressing apprehension of false implication. The court heard the parties and admitted the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the FIR was a counterblast to the earlier complaint and that the appellants were willing to cooperate with the investigation. The court observed that custodial interrogation of the appellants was not required and that the allegations appeared to be motivated. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and granted anticipatory bail to the appellants on certain conditions, including furnishing a PR bond of Rs.25,000 each and reporting to the investigating officer as required.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 - The appellants/accused sought anticipatory bail in Crime No.241/2018 alleging false implication due to a previous criminal case filed by appellant No.1 against the informant's family. The court held that custodial interrogation was not required and granted bail, noting the FIR appeared motivated and the appellants were willing to cooperate. (Paras 1-13) B) Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Sections 3, 4 - Anticipatory Bail - The court considered the nature of allegations under the Dowry Prohibition Act and found that the appellants had made out a case for anticipatory bail as the FIR was lodged after a delay and appeared to be a counterblast to a prior complaint. (Paras 7-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants/accused are entitled to anticipatory bail in a case under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, given the allegations of dowry harassment and the claim that the FIR is motivated.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge, Satara, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.661/2018 is set aside. The appellants are directed to be released on anticipatory bail in Crime No.241/2018 registered with Police Station Lonand, on executing a PR bond of Rs.25,000 each with one or more sureties. The appellants shall report to the investigating officer as and when required and shall not tamper with evidence or influence witnesses.
Law Points
- Anticipatory bail
- Dowry Prohibition Act
- Section 498A IPC
- False implication
- Motivated FIR
- Custodial interrogation not required
