Order Below Exh. 1 in Cri. B. Appln.No. 646/2022
(CNR No. MHNS010024552022)
Prashant Sakharam Jawale Vs. State.
Heard:
Ld. Adv. Mr. M. D. Bhanose for the applicant.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the state.

1.

This is an application under section 438 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.62/2022 registered at Police
Station, Ghoti, Dist. Nashik for the offence under Sections 498­
A, 306, 323, 504 & 506 r/w. Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It
is the case of prosecution in brief that the accused (husband and
in­laws of the deceased) inflicted cruelty on the victim due to
which she committed suicide. It is also alleged that two of the
victim’s suitors (before she got married) had called up the
father­in­law of the victim and told him that they had an affair
with her before marriage and would marry her. The applicant
herein is one of the suitors of the victim.
2.

Ld. Adv. for the applicant has submitted that as per
the case of the prosecution itself, the victim had left the house in
the morning on 1st May, 2022 pursuant to which her husband
went to her maternal house to check on her. However, she could
not be found there. He therefore lodged a missing complaint.
About 8 days thereafter, her dead body was found in the
backwaters. Ld. Adv. Mr. Bhanose has submitted that the case in
the FIR is very vague. It appears that out of an emotional
2
reaction to their daughter’s death, the complainant has made
omnibus allegations against all and sundry. The allegations
against the applicant are particularly vague. There is no
necessity of his custodial interrogation. He is ready to abide by
the terms and conditions imposed by the Court and also co­
operate in the investigation. Another co­accused who is similarly
placed has also been granted bail by this Court. Moreover, he
has filed on record photographs of the applicant in an extremely
battered and bruised state to show how the victim’s family
members have assaulted him.
3.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has opposed the application on
the ground that custodial interrogation of the applicant is
necessary.
4.

Applicant is ready to comply with the terms and
conditions imposed by the Court. No recovery needs to be made
from him. Prima­facie, allegations against the applicant appear
to be vague. His custodial interrogation therefore does not
appear to be necessary. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am
inclined to allow the application in terms of the following order:
ORDER
1)
Application is allowed.

2)
In the event of arrest of applicant (Prashant
Sakharam Jawale), he be released on executing
P. B. & S. B. of ₹15,000/­ with one local surety
of like amount.

3
3)
Applicant shall co­operate in the investigation
and shall attend the concerned police station as
and when called by the I.O.

4)
Applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promises to any
person acquainted with the facts of accusation,
so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to the police officer and
shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence
in any manner.

5)
Applicant shall not commit any offence and
shall attend all dates of hearing after filing of
charge­sheet.

6)
Applicant is duty bound to inform the I.O. and
the court about his change of address, if any.

7)
Applicant shall furnish residence and ID proof of
two blood relatives to the I.O.

(Dictated and pronounced in open Court).
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
04/06/2022
Digitally
signed by
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.06.04
15:22:54
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge­2 and Additional
Sessions Judge, Nashik.