Kesharbai Alias Kesabai Balchand Chavan And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another
2025:BHC-AUG:10672
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 968 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 516 OF 2025
1. KESHARBAI ALIAS KESABAI BALCHAND CHAVAN
2. SUWARNABAI RAVI CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...
Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Sudarshan J. Salunke APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 08.04.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.0079/2025, dated 18.02.2025, registered at Mantha Police Station, District Jalna, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3] This court by order dated 01.04.2025 granted interim protection to the applicants noticing submissions and reasons at paragraphs no.2 and 3 as under: "2. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that a case under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, corresponding to
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has been filed against the applicants. The applicants contend that the informant's sister, Pranita, married with Sachin. After a year of marriage, Pranita suffered from paralysis, and Sachin subsequently married the informant's younger sister, Savita. They resided in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, while Pranita stayed with her in-laws in village Aakani. The in-laws are alleged to have harassed the deceased, stating that she was suffering from paralysis and was unable to do any work, thereby urging her to stay with her husband.
3. Prima facie, the husband of the deceased, who is responsible to maintain her had left the deceased with his parents and was staying with his second wife. The deceased was staying with in-laws. The deceased's brother-in-law cannot insist upon the applicants displaying good behavior under these circumstances. Also the allegations on the face do not make out a case of abetment to suicide."
4] The learned APP points out that father-in-law being taken in custody has given statement that he has beaten the deceased as fight was going on between the applicant no.1 and the deceased. It is stated by the fatherin-law that while in custody that he has gone outside and returned back and seen that the applicant and the deceased were fighting and that the deceased was abusing the applicant no.1, as such, the father-in-law gave a stick blow on the back of the deceased. The learned APP further points out that there is an eye witness to the incident.
5] Be that as it may it cannot be said that merely because there was fight between the mother-in-law and the deceased, the deceased was instigated to commit suicide. 6] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 01.04.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:
i] The applicants shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
iii] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
7] In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
9] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe