High Court · 2025
Facts
965-ABA-772-2025.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 772 OF 2025Atul Madhav JoshiVersusThe State of Maharashtra & Ors.-------------------------Mr. D. R. Markad for the Applicant.Mrs. M. L. Sangit, APP for the State.-------------------------CORAM :ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE :30 JULY 2025P. C.:1.The Applicant has preferred this Application under Section 482of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 as he apprehends arrest.2.The present proceedings relate to Crime No.0103 of 2025registered by the M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Ahilyanagar. The F.I.R. islodged on 21 February 2025 at 19:22 Hours, invoking Sections 85, 352, 108,3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) inter alia against theApplicant/Accused persons. The Informant is one Dattatraya Ganpat Datir,aged 59 years, who is the father of the deceased. There are five accusedpersons in the F.I.R. out of which Accused No.1, who is the husband of thedeceased is the Applicant before this Court.Case in FIR:-3.The case in the F.I.R. is briefly that the deceased was married tothe Applicant on 26 September 2024. The deceased was working as ‘StaffNurse’ at Vikhe Patil Hospital, Viladghat, Ahmednagar and used to stay at aLadies Hostel. On the other hand, the Applicant was working as a MaleNurse at SNBT Hospital, Ghoti, Igatpuri, Nasik. The deceased used to visither matrimonial home at Dadh Khurd, Taluka Sangamner, Dist. Ahmednagarduring the holidays. Sometimes, she used to visit the maternal house but sheShubham Page 1 of 6 965-ABA-772-2025.docwas not looking happy. When the Complainant asked the deceased, sheexpressed that she was not properly treated by the Applicant as the deceasedsuspected he is having an extra marital affair. She had informed this to themother-in-law but she was abused and insulted. The mother-in-law used tosend her to the house of sister-in-law, who used to make the deceased do allhousehold work and ill-treat her physically and mentally. The Complainantretired from service in the month of September 2023. The Applicant and hisparents used to insist upon the deceased to bring Rs.10,00,000/- from herfather/parents to purchase a flat else the deceased was threatened withdivorce proceedings. On 20 January 2025, at about 4.00 p.m., theComplainant got the information that his daughter i.e. the deceased wasadmitted to the hospital and accordingly he visited the said Vikhe PatilHospital. The deceased was then in female surgery ward No.8 and wasunder treatment. When the Complainant met the deceased and on inquiry,she was informed that the Applicant had abused her over a phone call andthreatened her for divorce. As she got angry on this, on 20 January 2025, atabout 3.40 p.m., she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire.While undergoing treatment at the said hospital, she passed away at 2:11a.m. on 7 February 2025. It was after her funeral that the Informant and thefamily who are in complete grief, shock and sorrow, lodged the report andthe said F.I.R. came to be registered.Submissions:-4.Heard Mr. Markad, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mrs.Sangit, learned APP for the State. With their assistance, I have perused theF.I.R. and the record available with the Court.5.Mr. Markad, learned Advocate for the Applicant would firstsubmit that Applicant is innocent and he has no involvement in the allegedoffences as sought to be made out in the F.I.R. He would strongly allege thatthe marriage of the deceased with the Applicant was solemnized on 29 JuneShubham Page 2 of 6 965-ABA-772-2025.doc2024 and lasted only for about 6 to 7 months. During that duration, theywere hardly staying together as she was working as a Nurse and residing ata Hostel at the Vikhe Patil Hospital, Viladghat, Ahmednagar, whereas, herhusband was working as a Male Nurse at Ghoti, Igatpuri, Nasik, which arevery distant from each other. In the given facts and circumstances, theingredients of Section 108 of BNS would not be applicable qua the Applicantas there is no element of threat and/or inducement by the Applicant, whichwould lead the deceased to end her life. The Applicant has no criminalantecedents. The other accused persons/family members i.e. accused Nos. 2to 5 have been granted anticipatory bail by the Trial Court. Custodialinterrogation of the Applicant is not warranted in the given facts. Thus, theABA of the Applicant deserves to be allowed.Analysis:-6.On a perusal of the FIR coupled with the case diary, it ispertinent to note that it is evident that the deceased and the Applicantwhose marriage was short lived had strained relations. Not just that, thedeceased consistently has taken a stand that she was harassed, abused,tortured physically and mentally by the mother-in-law and the husband.This is particularly significant as the reason attributable to such violent andunusual behaviour on the part of this Applicant appears to be primarilyattributable to the suspicion of the deceased about some illicitrelationship/extramarital affair that he had with another woman. It waswhen the deceased confronted the mother-in-law about her husband’sconduct that the deceased used to be threatened to go to her parents’ house.What is also significant is that pursuant to the retirement of the father of thedeceased in September 2023, her husband and mother-in-law allegedlydemanded an amount of Rs.10 lakhs from her so that they could buy a flator else she was threatened to be divorced by the husband. She was admittedto Vikhe Patil Hospital on 20 January 2025 at around 4:00 p.m. when herShubham Page 3 of 6
Legal Reasoning
965-ABA-772-2025.docparents reached there to meet her and she was undergoing treatment, sheconfided in them and specifically mentioned that the husband abused her onthe phone and threatened that he is going to divorce her and not cohabitwith her.7.According to her, it was in such state of anger and frustration on20 January 2025 at around 3:40 p.m. before she was admitted to thehospital, and poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. What is significant isthat what she confided in her parents on 20 January 2025, the day on whichshe committed suicide is further corroborated in her dying declaration whichis on record in the case diary. The said dying declaration categorically refersto the quarrel she had with her husband and she poured kerosene on herself.Such dying declaration which is a part of the record of the prosecutionappears to be recorded in presence of the Election Naib Tehsildar,Ahmednagar. The medical officer has endorsed that the victim was incomplete conscious state while giving such dying declaration, where shespecifically refers to the quarrel with husband. Even if there areinconsistencies in the dying declaration, the same would be appreciated inthe context of Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act (Section 26 of BNS) duringtrial. It is trite law that there cannot be a mini trial conducted at apreliminary stage of anticipatory bail which is presently before the Court.8.Considering the nature of accusations, the chronology of eventsand the consistency in the victim’s version as noted above, the serious natureof accusations more particularly with regard to the allegation of the extra-marital affair of the husband, the monetary demand of Rs.10 lakhs made atthe behest of the husband and the mother-in-law does not appear to bereplete with falsity in the given set of facts and circumstances. In fact, thevictim has confided about the fact of quarrel and ill-treatment mainly at thehands of the husband and mother-in-law to the parents on the day shecommitted suicide i.e. on 20 January 2025. The fact of such quarrel is alsoShubham Page 4 of 6 965-ABA-772-2025.docexpressly stated by her in her dying declaration which for the reasons notedabove cannot be disbelieved or discarded at this preliminary stage of theproceedings.9.Except for pleading that the husband and wife were stayingseparately, there is no submission made on behalf of the Applicant whichwould at this stage completely dislodge the aspect of abatement being anessential ingredient under Section 108 of the BNS. As laid down by theSupreme Court, there appears to be proximity between the nature ofaccusations and the suicide committed by her, in the given factual matrix.Prima facie, the fact of the deceased committing suicide by self immolationwhich could be attributable to the instigation inducement mainly by thehusband cannot be completely brushed aside at this stage and requiresthorough investigation. 10.For all the above reasons, custodial interrogation of theApplicant is warranted as he appears to be the closest link in the chain as faras the extreme step taken by the deceased who has also left behind a dyingdeclaration. For the purposes of the in depth investigation and to elicitcomplete information which would be exclusively within the knowledge ofthe Applicant, it would require custodial interrogation of the Applicant,considering the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in the case ofCBI Vs. Anil Sharma1. In my view, a prima facie case against the Applicant hasbeen demonstrated by the prosecution at the preliminary stage within thecontours of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sumitha Pradeep Vs. ArunKumar C.K. & Anr.2. The prosecution has expressed a reasonableapprehension of the Applicant influencing witnesses, tampering with theevidence, which cannot be ruled out in the given factual complexion. Theconduct of the Applicant, according to the prosecution would indicate thathe is attempting to flee from justice. In such facts and circumstances, to1.1997 AIR SC 38062.(2022) SCC OnLine SC 1529Shubham Page 5 of 6 965-ABA-772-2025.docunearth the truth as Mrs. Sangit, learned APP would urge that to docomplete justice to the victim who ultimately succumbed, custodialinterrogation would help in the discovery of truth, in the peculiar factualcomplexion.11.As regards the contention of delay in lodging the FIR isconcerned, in my prima facie view, such delay will not prejudice theApplicant in any manner. There is sufficient explanation for the delay, whichhas been noted and considered at this stage.Conclusion:-12.For all of the above reasons, the Anticipatory Bail Application isdevoid of merit. It fails to inspire confidence and/or appeal to theconscience of the Court. Accordingly, the following order is passed:-.O R D E Ri.Anticipatory Bail Application No.772 of 2025 is Rejected.[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]Shubham Page 6 of 6