Synopsis: The Court held that those allegations do not include the custody of applicants aged 80 years and 75 years, respectively.
A Mumbai court said that talking sarcastically and taunting daughter-in-law is part of married life and may not be a reason to seek custody of aged in-laws while granting anticipatory bail under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code to in-laws accused of cruelty (IPC).
The Court heard a plea filed by Ramesh and Malavicka Dalal (applicants) pursuant to Sections 498A (cruelty by in-laws), 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC against them and their son, for anticipatory bail in relation to the FIR filed by their daughter-in-law alleging offences.
The Court stated that the wear and tear of the married life that every family witnesses is the sarcastic talk and taunting of the first informant by the in-laws. The custody of applicants who are 80 years and 75 years of age, respectively, is not required by the police for those allegations.
Special POCSO Judge Madhuri Baraliya observed that the rest allegations made in the FIR against the applicants were from a general nature, apart from the offences alleged.
The Court also observed that the complainant stayed only for a very short period with the applicants. In addition, their accounts were already frozen by the investigating agency, investigations were ongoing and there was no need for it.
The complainant, daughter-in-law, submitted that a probe was pending against the applicants frozen their accounts with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
However, since the present FIR was an independent crime, the Court was not impressed by that line of argument.
The application was also opposed on the ground that Dalals may abscond from the court’s jurisdiction and move to Dubai where their son resides.
Accordingly, the Court directed the applicants to surrender their passports to the police station thus allowing them anticipatory bail.