Mrs. R. S. Kulkarni for the v. Lavte, APP for the State
Facts
Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 971 OF 2025Rupali Sanjay LondheVersusThe State of MaharashtraWITHCRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2401 OF 2025 IN ABA/971/2025Mahesh Gorakshnath KakadVersusThe State of Maharashtra -------------------------Mrs. R. S. Kulkarni for the Applicant.Mr. A. V. Lavte, APP for the State.-------------------------CORAM :ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE :21 JULY 2025P. C.:1.The Applicant has filed this Application under Section 482 ofthe Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”) as she apprehends arrest. Theproceedings relate to CR No.0251 of 2025. The FIR is lodged on 10 May2025 at 22:11 hours by the Kopargaon Police Station, Ahilyanagar. Theoccurrence of the offence is shown on 10 May 2025 between 13:30 hours to20:30 hours. The FIR discloses names of five accused persons, out of whichaccused No.1 is the Applicant before the Court. Accused No.2, 3 and 5 havebeen arrested. Pursuant to such arrest they have filed Bail Applicationsbefore the Additional Sessions Judge, Sessions Court, Kopargaon, whichhave been rejected by separate orders dated 4 July 2025. The Informant isShubham Page 1 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docone Mahesh Gorakshnath Kakad, age 26 years, who is the brother of thedeceased.Case in FIR:-2.The perusal of the FIR reveals that the deceased Sainath i.e.brother of the Informant, who was working in an IT company named MDIsituated at Vimannagar Pune. The deceased was staying in a rental room atWadgaon Sheri, Pune. The present Applicant and the deceased knew eachother. The deceased Sainath used to treat the Applicant Rupali as his sister.Since the last one year the Applicant used to visit the residence of Sainathsituated at Dohale. The family members of the deceased knew the Applicant,who also had a residence in Vimannagar, Pune. On 10 May 2025 i.e. thedate on which the complaint was lodged, at about 8:30 a.m. the Informantfor work related reasons was at Nashik and was at his room. At that time hereceived a phone call of his father Gorakshnath stating that the deceasedSainath has been admitted to Sai Super Hospital, Shirdi. His fatherimmediately asked the Informant to visit the said hospital. When theInformant reached the hospital at around 11:00 a.m. and inquired with theconcerned doctor about the health of his brother, he was informed that hisbrother, deceased Sainath suffered a heart failure and that the doctors aretrying their best to revive him. However, on the same day at about 1:30p.m., the concerned doctor declared the deceased Sainath as dead.Thereupon, the Informant witnessed the body of his brother and noticedinjuries on his lips and red marks on his neck. The Informant thus inquiredShubham Page 2 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docwith his father as to what had happened. To this, he was told that at about6:00 a.m. on 10 May 2025 he had received phone call of the father of theApplicant, namely, one Sanjay Londhe. He informed the Informant’s fatherover the call that the deceased Sainath was brought in an unconscious stateat the house of the Applicant situated at Kokamthan (near Shirdi), where hewas lying in an unconscious state and they should come there at the earliest.The father of the deceased inquired with the friend/roommate of thedeceased namely one Suhas Dube, who narrated that on 10 May 2025 thatat about 1:30 a.m. the present Applicant along with the four co-accusedpersons came to their room when the deceased was asleep he was woken upfrom his sleep and the present Applicant along with her brother Anil Londhe(accused No.2) and the other co-accused persons inquired from thedeceased as to why he had posted certain messages on Instagram addressedto the husband of their sister and stating that the deceased ruined theirsister’s life. The present Applicant along with her brother and the co-accusedpersons dragged him outside the room and forced him into a four wheeler.3.As further disclosed in the FIR he was then brought to the houseof the Applicant No.1 at Kokamthan, where he was administered a poisonlike liquid and the Applicant along with three co-accused persons presentthere (original accused Nos.2, 3 and 5) killed/murdered the deceased.Accordingly, the FIR was lodged under Sections 103(1), 140(1), 189(2) and191(2) of the BNS, for the alleged offence/s.Shubham Page 3 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docSubmissions:-4.Mrs. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for the Applicant wouldstrongly urge that the Applicant is being falsely implicated in the presentcrime and has absolutely no role to play in regard to the alleged offences.She would make submissions on the basis of the remand report to submitthat it is on record that the deceased was in a habit of consuming liquor andon 8 May 2025 and 9 May 2025 he had consumed alcohol. On both thedays, the deceased was not even in a position to walk. His roommate SuhasDube and friend Shubham were having full knowledge of such habit ofconsuming alcohol of the deceased. It was such alcohol consumption thatthe physical condition of the deceased was not healthy which wascommunicated to the friends and family members of the deceased. Shewould next refer to the P. M. report to submit that the nature of wounds andinjuries would reveal that the allegation of the Applicant and the co-accusedhaving assaulted to deceased is incorrect, false and contrary to such P. M.report and record. As stated in the P. M. report the death was due tounknown poisonous compound, which has no connection or nexus with thepresent Applicant in any manner whatsoever. She would urge that the FIRitself reveals that the Applicant and the deceased were known to each otherand their families and that they share a brother sisterly relationship. Thus,the allegations against the Applicant are false much less believable.5.Mr. Lavte, learned APP would on the other hand submit that theP. M. report would clearly reveal that the deceased died due to the presenceShubham Page 4 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docof some unknown poisonous compound in his body which in the said reportis described as 200 ml dark brownish having yellowish tinge havingkerosene like odour with haemorrhagic mucosa. He would rely on the FIR tosubmit that the present Applicant-accused along with the other co-accusedhas forcibly carried the deceased from Pune to Kokamthan at late midnighthours of 9 May 2025, after which he was brought to the hospital at Shirdi.Referring to the case diary, Mr. Lavte would state that the eye witnesses haveseen the Applicant-accused at the scene of the incident in Pune. Theroommate of the deceased i.e. Suhas Dube who resided with him haddescribed the incident, who was present at the time when the deceased wasforcibly dragged from his room at Nashik by the Applicant and the three co-accused persons, who threatened him for sending certain messages onInstagram to their sister. There were injury marks visible upon the lips andneck of the deceased, which create suspicion and as also doubt in regard tothe alleged assault on the deceased by the Applicant and the co-accusedpersons. The C.C.T.V. footage which has been seized during the investigationclearly makes visible the present Applicant at the time when the deceasedwas forcibly taken by the Applicant and other co-accused person form hisflat at Pune. It is the Applicant who appears to have played the pivotal rolein the present crime as it appears that it is on her instigation and directionthat the deceased was brought to the flat of the Applicant at Kokamthan. Insuch facts and circumstances, considering the P. M. report, custodialinterrogation would be much required and for all such reasons the ABAShubham Page 5 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docdeserves to be dismissed.Findings:-6.Heard learned counsel for the Applicant, learned APP and withtheir assistance perused the record. From a perusal of the FIR and theincident that has been reported prima facie reveals that the death of thedeceased is shrouded under suspicious circumstances. A perusal of the P. M.report would further support this inasmuch as the reason of death is statedto be due to unknown poisonous compound and about 200 ml of liquid,having kerosene like odour with haemorrhagic mucosa has been found inthe stomoch of the deceased. The said report in (paragraph 17) also showsscratch, abrasion over left side lateral aspect of midneck of the deceasedwhich is corroborated with the version, who witnessed similar injury marksinter alia on the neck of the deceased. The statement/information given bythe roommate-Suhas Dube, who resided with the deceased corroborates thecontents in the compliant and FIR, in regard to the manner in whichdeceased was forcibly taken from his room at Pune at about 1:30 a.m. andpushed into the car and taken away, threatening the deceased in regard tothe said Instagram messages. Further, the prosecution has submitted that thecase diary reveals that there are eye witnesses, who have stated to have seenthe Applicant when the deceased was taken away from his flat at in Puneand have specifically referred to her. The C.C.T.V. footage which has beenseized which clearly reveals presence of the Applicant whilst forcibly takingthe deceased from his flat at Pune. The contents in the FIR are corroboratedShubham Page 6 of 9
Legal Reasoning
Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docby the statement of the eye witness, which cannot be glossed over at thispreliminary stage. There is substance in the prosecution’s case that thealleged crime could have been committed at the instigation and direction ofthis Applicant as the deceased was brought by her and the other three co-accused at her home in Kokamthan. The fact that he was brought therewhere he was unconscious is not disputed. This does require detailedinvestigation. The P. M. report also reveals that the death was due tounknown poisonous compound, however, viscera preserved for chemicalanalysis. In such factual matrix, custodial interrogation of the Applicantwould be necessary to unearth, determine as to whose instance the poisonas alleged was administered, where was it so administered and the reasonsin that regard and the nature of the messages allegedly sent by the deceasedon Instagram so as to investigate the motive and intent which led to thedeath of the young 24 years old deceased, to take the investigation to itslogical end.7.A prima facie case thus, has been made out against theApplicant by the prosecution. The ingredients of alleged offences against theApplicant appear to be applicable at this stage. Though Mrs. Kulkarni wouldstraneously urge that the Applicant is a 23 years old young professionalworking with a BPO, the suspicious circumstances under which the equallyyoung deceased aged 24 has lost his life has to be investigated thoroughlyfor which custodial interrogation in the given factual complexion would benecessary. It is also seen from the case diary/investigation material thatShubham Page 7 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docthough the mobile phone of the deceased has been seized the data on suchdevice appears to have been deleted for which it is sent to the forensic lab atNashik for recovery. In such backdrop the apprehension of the prosecutionthat the Applicant, if enlarged on bail, possibility of tampering with evidencecannot be discarded at this preliminary stage. According to the prosecutionshe has played a pivotal role and is the key accused in the present crime.The Bail Applications of the other three co-accused persons has also beenrejected, where there is specific reference to the Applicant as the key, mainaccused. Be that as it may. However, independent of that, for the reasonsrecorded above, in my view, both requirements of prima facie case andcustodial interrogation would necessitate dismissal of the Anticipatory BailApplication, inter alia, on the well settled legal principle that this is anexception and not the rule.8.Before concluding it may be necessary to note that Mrs.Kulkarni has placed an affidavit filed by the father of the Applicant dated 8May 2025 pursuant to the orders passed on 3 July 2025. It narrates that theInvestigating Officers, three in number, had visited the house of thedeponent (father of the Applicant) on 8 July 2025 and threatened thenephew by clicking his photographs. When such allegations were made, oneof the Investigating Officers was also directed to remain present in Courtpursuant to which the Court has made necessary enquiries with the saidOfficer, who denied the nature of allegations in such affidavit dated 8 July2025. Such actions if at all by the Investigating Officers as indicated in theShubham Page 8 of 9 Suicide matter ABA-971-2025.docaffidavit placed on record dated 8 July 2025 cannot be countenanced. It isalso open for the deponent to take appropriate steps as the law wouldmandate in this regard. Needless to state that the Investigating Officersought to act in accordance with law and they are not in any manner abovethe law.9.However, it is difficult for the Court at such preliminary stage tochange its view and give a benefit of doubt to the Applicant as far as herprayer for anticipatory bail is concerned. For all the reasons noted above, theprayer in the ABA does not appeal to the conscience of the Court nor does itinspire confidence at this stage. Thus the following order is passed:-O R D E Ri.Anticipatory Bail Application No.971 OF 2025 is Rejected.ii.Pending Application/s, if any in these proceedings, would notsurvive and is/are accordingly dismissed.10.Needless to mention that these observations are prima facieonly for the purposes of adjudication of this Anticipatory Bail Application. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]Shubham Page 9 of 9