Mumbai Sessions Court at Dindoshi grants Anticipatory Bail to Senior Citizen Couple accused in 498A Cruelty FIR – Advocate Aditya Pratap represents the Applicants in the Case

The Court of Sessions at Dindoshi, Mumbai granted Anticipatory Bail to a Mumbai-based senior citizen couple who had been arraigned as Accused in an FIR registered under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Advocate Aditya Pratap represented the couple and argued their Anticipatory Bail Application before the Sessions Court.

Facts of the Case in Brief: 

Taking the court through the facts of the case, Advocate Aditya Pratap submitted that the marriage of the couple’s son was solemnized with the wife (daughter-in-law) in the year 2021 in accordance with Hindu Vedic rites and rituals. He submitted that barely a few months after the marriage, the daughter-in-law (wife) went ahead and registered an FIR under Sections 498A, 406, 323, 504, 506, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Stressing the need to grant anticipatory bail to his clients under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Advocate Pratap argued that his clients were innocent and had been falsely implicated in the crime. No cruelty was ever committed nor were any unlawful demands made. The entire story in the FIR was cooked up to abuse the process and misuse the police machinery against innocent persons.

Buttressing his submissions with case law, Advocate Aditya Pratap specifically relied upon a series of rulings and judicial precedents comprising:

• Arnesh Kumar v/s State of Bihar

• Pavitra Uraon v/s State of Chhattisgarh

• Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar and Ors. v/s Union of India

• Kahkasan Kusar v/s State of Bihar

• Rajesh Sharma v/s State of U.P.

• Preeti Gupta v/s State of Jharkhand

Regarding the above precedents, Advocate Pratap submitted that no arrest was warranted in the case. Custodial interrogation was not required, and nothing was to be recovered by way of search and seizure.

The Prosecution and Complainant’s Opposition:

The application for anticipatory bail was opposed by the police, prosecutor, and the complainant. They argued that cruelty had been inflicted upon the wife/daughter-in-law, and unlawful demands had been made. They further claimed that the custody of the accused was required to recover the “stridhan” and facilitate the investigation.

Observations and Reasoning of the Court: 

Having heard the arguments of both sides, the court, led by the Additional Sessions Judge, observed that Advocate Pratap’s clients were senior citizens suffering from various serious physical ailments. It would be completely unjust to subject them to any form of arrest or custodial interrogation.

Anticipatory Bail Application Allowed Subject to Conditions Imposed:

Passing its final order, the court was pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant senior citizen couple under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. The Court ordered that, in the event of arrest, the elderly couple were to be released on bail by executing a personal recognizance (P.R.) bond of Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand each, along with one or more sureties.

Additionally, the following conditions were imposed by the Court: 

A. The Applicants would regularly attend the police station.
B. They were not to pressurize the complainant and witnesses.
C. They would not leave India without prior permission of the court.
D. No inducement, threats, or promises were to be made to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
E. Details of the Applicants’ address and contact number were to be furnished to the police station and the investigating officer.