The Bombay High Court allowed an application filed under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, seeking intervention in the anticipatory bail application.
The Court observed that there is no material on record to show that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation; therefore, the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary.
Brief Facts:
On 20th March 2020, the first information report came to be registered at the instance of the mother-in-law (Intervener), alleging that in the month of December 2019, the applicant left her matrimonial home. Prior to that, she had taken all the gold ornaments which were kept in the locker of the Bank of Maharashtra. The locker was in the name of the applicant and her husband (son of the informant). The informant handed over the ornaments to her son and applicant jointly for securing them. According to the report, when the husband visited the bank, it was revealed that the ornaments were missing. The applicant, therefore, filed an application under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, after the B Summary report was not accepted by the Magistrate. The applicant, therefore, approached the learned Sessions Court under section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The learned Sessions Court rejected the application by order dated 8th July 2020. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has filed a present anticipatory bail application.
Contentions of the Applicant:
The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submitted that lodging of report is a counterblast to the complaint filed by the applicant under section 498(A), 406 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. A report has been filed to compel the applicant to withdraw her allegations made before the Women Cell in a petition under the provisions of the D.V. Act. She invited the Court’s attention to the interim order passed by this Court on 24th July 2020, arising out of the same first information report. This Court had protected the applicant but due to the submission of the B Summary report by the investigating agency, the earlier anticipatory bail application was disposed of. She, therefore, submitted that the custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the applicant was the person who had access to the locker as the key was with the applicant. She submitted that the applicant used to visit the bank for the purpose of operating the bank locker; therefore, custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that the applicant had filed proceedings under the D.V. Act and the first information report against her husband (son of the informant). Further, as per the allegation in the first information report, ornaments were entrusted jointly with the husband of the applicant and the applicant; in the very report, the investigating agency had filed a B Summary report which was rejected by the learned Magistrate. The husband filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights against the applicant before registration of the first information report.
The Court noted that this Court initially protected the applicant by the interim order dated 24th July 2020, which was subsequently disposed of, and, thereafter, has protected the applicant by the interim order dated 30th June 2022. There is no material on record to show that the applicant has not cooperated with the investigation. Therefore, the applicant’s custodial interrogation is not necessary.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court, allowing the application, held that the applicant shall remain present before the investigating officer as and when called by the concerned investigating officer.
Case Title: Shvetali Devendranath Agrawal v The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Amit Borkar
Case no.: ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1754 OF 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Ms. Mrunmai Kulkarni
Advocate for the Respondent: Ms. Rutuja Ambekar
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
