CRIME No. 149 of 2026 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- M M NERLIKAR
Outcome
Allowed
ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Provisions considered
Judgment
29ba531.26in abortion of her pregnancy and caused danger to her life. Pursuant to the report, First Information Report (“FIR”) was registered and applicant along with other accused persons, was taken into custody. 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits the FIR is based on a false and concocted story. The informant herself consented for abortion and thus she ought not to have made such allegations against the applicant. The FIR itself is an afterthought and this fact is apparent from the huge delay caused in lodging it. Consent for abortion was obtained wayback on 22.02.2026 and FIR was lodged on 23.03.2026. Even, the other allegations, which are in respect of harassment and cruelty, are general and vague in nature. There is absolutely no evidence or material to show that it was a forceful abortion. Considering the nature of allegations, he be released on bail. 7. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. vehemently opposed the application and submits that it is a case of forceful abortion.
Consent was obtained by pressurizing the informant, which can be gathered from the text of the consent letter itself. Shefurther submits that there are serious allegations and the informant was compelled to abort the child, which pregnancy was of one month. She submits that the investigation isunderway and, therefore, considering the seriousness of allegations, the applicant is not entitled to be released on bail.8.I have considered the rival submissions and record. Perusal of the FIR, investigation papers and the case diary shows that the informant was having one month pregnancy. (3) 29ba531.26Consent letter shows that applicant and informant both were not ready to continue with the pregnancy and thus they decided to abort the same. Accordingly, applicant has given abortion pills to the informant, which led to excessive bleeding to the informant. Therefore, they were required to take the informant to Dr.
Operative part
Ande’s hospital. So far as prescription of Dr. Ande’shospital is concerned, it nowhere shows that there was any complaint by the informant that her husband has forcefully asked her to abort the child. 9. The applicant is a Government Servant and is behind the bars since 24.03.2026. If released on bail, there is no likelihood of the applicant absconding or violating the conditions of bail. I am, therefore, inclined to grant bail. Hence, the following order.ORDER(i)The application is allowed. (ii)Applicant – Sheikh Wahid Sheikh Hamid, be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.149/2026,registered with Police Station, Anjangaon Dist. Amravati, for the offences punishable under Section 4 of the Dowry ProhibitionAct, 1961 and Sections 3(5), 89 and 85 of the Bhartiya NyayaSanhita, 2023, on his furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount. (iii)The applicant shall not enter into the vicinity where the informant and her family is residing.
(iv)The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation and shall make himself available as and when called by PoliceStation Officer, Police Station, Anjangaon, Dist. Amravati. (4) 29ba531.26(v)The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence. (vi)The applicant shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change hisplace of residence without prior intimation to the InvestigatingAgency. (vii)Once the trial commences, the applicant shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail. (viii)The above observations are prima facie in nature, and restricted for the purpose of deciding this application. The TrialCourt shall not get itself influenced by said observations, during the course of trial. (JUDGE)Kahale
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: ORDER(i)The application is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
DowryProhibition Act, 1961 — s. 4; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.