IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT KALYAN, DISTRICT: THANE
Anticipatory Bail Application No. of 2022
ANK & Anr. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra (Kamothe PS) Respondent
INDEX
Sr. Ex. Particulars Page
No.
1) SYNOPSIS
2) Anticipatory Bail Application
3) Vakalatnama
4) List of Documents
5) A Order dated 17.08.2021 in ABA 701 of
2021
6) B Copy of ABA 701 of 2021 as filed by
Applicants son before this Hon'ble Court.
7) C Aadhar Card of Applicant No. 1
8) D Aadhar Card of Applicant No. 2
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT PANVEL – RAlGAD
Anticipatory Bail Application No. of 2021
P. Thomas son of K. Ponnaiah & Anr. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra (Kamothe PS) Respondent
SYNPOSIS
Dates Events
07.02.2020 Marriage solemnised between the Applicants son
and Complainant.
Feb 2020 Couple went for honeymoon, i.e., son and daughter-
in-law.
Somewhere Complainant started complaining about the space
in mid Feb constraint and privacy in the residence of
March 2020 Applicants in Dharavi, Mumbai.
April 2020 Considering the happiness of the newly married
couple, the Applicants went to their native place
and till date are residing at their native village, for
the purpose of happiness, despite being old and not
being able to take all care by themselves.
During the Applicants’ son lost his job. Hence, the
lockdown Complainant started complaining about money and
continued demands from him. Thus, rendering
matrimonial discord. The Complainant left the
matrimonial home and went along with all her stree
dhan at her maternal home.
Belatedy, in The Applicants son received notice from
August 2021 Respondent Police Station for attendance and
hence, post attendance recording statement with the
Police Station, the Applicants son filed ABA 701 of
2021 before this Hon'ble Court.
November Considering the threat that continues to the liberty
2021 of the Applicants, the Applicants are preferring this
ABA in order to continue to secure their liberty and
sort out the matrimonial discord between the
Complainant and their son.
Acts to be relied
Indian Penal Code
Criminal Procedure Code.
Judgements:
Arnesh Kumar Judgement by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
Advocate for Applicants
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT PANVEL – RAlGAD
Anticipatory Bail Application of 2021
No.
1. P. Thomas son of K. Ponnaiah
64 years, Occupation: Retired
Residing at Opp. ONGC Building, R. No.
308, Shivam CHS, Dharavi Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400017.
Having Aadhar as 2933 8736 6203
2. T. Chitra wife of P. Thomas
56 years, Occupation: House wife
Residing at Opp. ONGC Building, R. No.
308, Shivam CHS, Dharavi Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400017. Applicant /
Having Aadhar as 7668 5302 6495 Accused
Versus
State of Maharashtra …
@ the Instance of Kamothe Police Station,
in F.I.R. No. 361 of 2021 u. / ss. - 498(A),
323, 504, 506 of I. P. C. Respondent
Application for Anticipatory Bail u.s.
438 of Criminal Procedure Code:
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR:
1. The Applicant No. 1 and 2 above named are permanent
residents of Mumbai as mentioned in the Cause title. For the
purpose of their identification, they have annexed hereto copies
of their Aadhar Card at the end of this Application marked as
Annexure “C & D”).
2. That the Applicants have been roped in unnecessarily just being
the parents of their Son, who is the husband of the Complainant,
who is the daughter – in – law of the Applicants herein.
3. That a notice dated 07.08.2021 was originally received by the
Applicants from the Respondent Police Station for the purpose
of hearing the version of the Applicants herein pursuant to the
Complaint filed by the Complainant with the Respondent Police
Station.
4. That the copy of the FIR is not available with the Applicants
and hence the present Application is filed on the basis of the
Notice as was made available to the Applicants and their son.
5. That upon request from the duty officer, some information as to
the lodging of the F.I.R. No. 361 of 2021 u. / ss. - 498(A), 323,
504, 506 of I. P. C. (“FIR”, in short, hereinafter) was intimated
against the Applicants and their son.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE
6. According to the story of the prosecution, basis some false
allegation by the daughter-in-law of Applicants, the alleged FIR
was filed only as a purpose of harassment and vengeance
against the Applicants.
7. Nowadays, it is simply a wrongful practice to rope in all the
immediate relatives of the husband by the wife under the garb
of 498-A as time and again reiterated by the Courts in India.
8. In the case of Arnesh Kumar, the Apex Court has already held
that there should not be immediate arrest under 498-A and also
time and again other judgements have confirmed and asserted
that for all offences with punishment of less than 7 years,
immediate arrest ought not to be the rule but exception.
9. In the present instance, as it is known, that the Applicant are age
old parents of the Complainant and they have nothing to do with
the false accusation, as may have been elaborated in the FIR
and considering the charges as framed in the alleged FIR, all
offences, apart from 498-A, as alleged, i.e., 323, 504 and 506 of
IPC are bailable and non-cognizable.
10. That further and primarily, it is the duty that the copy of the FIR
be provided and hence, a mandatory direction will also be
sought from this Hon'ble Court for the purpose of understanding
the prosecution story and the version of the prosecution,
including the false allegation by the Complainant.
11. The Applicants state that by an order dated 17.08.2021 as
passed by this Hon'ble Court, i.e., Hon'ble Addln. Sessions
Court, Panvel, Raigad in ABA No. 701 of 2021 (copy / copies
whereof is / are annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “A”)
the son of the Applicants was granted interim protection by this
Hon'ble Court and the next date of hearing of the above ABA
701 of 2021 is 19.11.2021.
12. The Applicants also state that they shall refer to and rely upon
the entire office copy of the Anticipatory Bail Application
(which seems to be a photocopy of the certified copy as
provided by the Advocate for son of Applicants in ABA) as
annexed hereto and marked as Annexure “B”.
13. The Applicants shall crave leave to refer to the facts and
circumstances of the case, as enumerated in the ABA 701 of
2021, whereby already, the statements as recorded by the son of
Applicants is annexed.
14. The Applicants state that on or about 07.02.2020, i.e.,
immediately a month prior to lock-down, marriage was
solemnized between the Applicants’ son and (NANDINI
SATISH SELVAN Nee name NANDINI MADHAVAN
NADAR). Thereafter, as per the modern culture, the
Applicants’ son and Complainant went for a week long
honeymoon to Uttarakhand, in north India.
15. That after returning from the honeymoon, the Complainant had
problems with the presence of the Applicants and started to
blame the son of Applicants time and again regarding the
privacy concern. This was a grave shock to the family of the
Applicants as they were close knit and had no-one immediate to
take care after them save and except their newly married son
and daughter-in-law, i.e., the Complainant.
16. Hence, for the purpose of everyone’s happiness, the Applicants
immediately moved to their native place and till the time of
filing of the FIR, they were residing in their native, so as to
provide maximum privacy to the Complainant and their son in
their newly married life.
17. This fact was still not gullible to the Complainant and hence,
she started dominating the Applicants son. Ensuring COVID-19
lockdown, it was a disparity that the Applicants son lost his job
wherein the Complainant could continue her job. Despite her
good-luck and destiny, she continued to demand expensive
food, clothing and articles from the Applicants son, which was
practically not possible to be fulfilled by the son of the
Applicants.
18. Thus, one day, alongwith all the belongings and streedhan, the
Complainant left her matrimonial house and went away to her
maternal home, and continued staying there. This fact was
informed to the Applicants later by their son, who tried to
pacify the situation. In the meantime, he also mentioned that he
was harassed, abused and also his name was spoilt in the society
that he is unable to satisfy the sexual needs of the Complainant.
COUNTER ARGUMENTS
19. The applicants state that by and large, whatever allegations and
the contents in the FIR would be, they ought to have been
blasphemy and blatant lies against these Applicants just as an
abuse of the process of law, in order to harass the applicants.
20. It is pertinent to note that both the families entered into the
alliance of pure and sacred relationship after the clear
intervention of well-wishers after knowing about the house,
economic, financial position of both the families.
GROUNDS
A. The allegations are baseless and false and done with the view to
harass, the Applicants and further to forcefully dominate
Complainant’s presence in the residence without taking care of
any member of the family, including that of the Applicant No. 1
and 2.
B. That, under such circumstances, it is a strong threat and having
done no wrong, the Applicants shall suffer from the illegal
arrest at false complaint by Complainant.
C. That both the Applicants are medically not sound and are taking
care of themselves, with difficulty, being senior and old.
D. That the Applicants are innocent and are falsely implicated in
the crime with ulterior motive and malafide intention and due to
adamant behavior and demands of Complainant. That the
Complainant’s antecedent is admitted in her ignorance towards
the needs of the Applicants.
E. That considering the facts and circumstances, no custodial
interrogation of the applicants are necessary and the Applicants
shall mediate / conciliate and decide whether to live life
together or to get divorced as per orders of the Hon'ble Court.
Since, there is a matrimonial discord and the Complaint is an
attempted retaliation.
F. That the Applicants are permanent residents of the
abovementioned address and have deep roots in the society and
there are no chances of their absconding. That they have
remained present in Mumbai only after the absence of the
Complainant and for the purpose of filing the present
Application.
G. That the Applicants submit that they are ready to co-operate to
investigation agency, if directed, by this Hon’ble Court.
H. That there is nothing to be recovered and allegations, if any
against the Applicants must be merely vague and omnibus. That
by following the directions in the latest Supreme Court
Judgment (4 AIR 2017 SC 3869 : 2017 (8) SCALE 313 – Social
Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and another VERSUS Union
of India & Others dated September 14 , 2018) and by following
the guidelines thereby, the arrest can be evaded.
I. That the Applicants will not threat the prosecution witnesses.
X=x=x=x=x=x=x=X
21. That the Applicants state that they have not filed any other
application, appeal or revision either in this Hon’ble Court or in
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India touching the subject matter
of the present application.
22. The Applicants shall crave leave to refer to and rely upon
documents, as produced and called for.
PRAYERS
23. In the circumstances the Applicants pray this Hon'ble Court:-
a. In the event of arrest, the Applicants be released on bail
in connection with alleged F.I.R. No. 361 of 2021 u. / ss.
- 498(A), 323, 504, 506 of I. P. C. registered the Instance
of Kamothe Police Station, on such terms and
conditions as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper;
b. to grant ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a)
above;
c. to direct the Respondent to provide with copy of the FIR
in the instant case;
d. to pass any such other and further orders as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances
of the case.
Applicants
Advocate for the Applicants
VERIFICATION / AFFIRMATION
We, (1) P. Thomas son of K. Ponnaiah aged 64 years,
Occupation: Retired, and (2) T. Chitra wife of P. Thomas 56
years, Occupation: House wife, both Residing at Opp. ONGC
Building, R. No. 308, Shivam CHS, Dharavi Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400017, being the above-named Applicant, do hereby
state and affirm that whatsoever is stated in the forgoing
paragraphs are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief and nothing material has been concealed there from.
Solemnly affirmed / declared at Mumbai
on this ……. day of ………. 2021
Advocate for Complainant
Complainant
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE
AT PANVEL – RAlGAD
Anticipatory Bail Application No. of 2021
P. Thomas son of K. Ponnaiah & Anr. Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra (Kamothe PS) Respondent
Vakalatnama
We, (1) P. Thomas son of K. Ponnaiah aged 64 years,
Occupation: Retired, and (2) T. Chitra wife of P. Thomas 56
years, Occupation: House wife, both Residing at Opp. ONGC
Building, R. No. 308, Shivam CHS, Dharavi Road, Dharavi,
Mumbai 400017, being the above-named Applicant, do hereby
appoint Hemen Thakkar, Sharaddha Jadhav and Digajmaan G.
Mishra Advocates, High Court, Bombay to act, appear and plead
on my behalf in the above matter.
In WITNESS WHEREOF, I / We have put my / our
ignatures at Mumbai this day of Nov. 2021.
Applicants
Accepted
Hemen Thakkar Shraddha Jadhav D. G. Mishra
Email:
Mobile No.
