Sudhir Shravan Lomte v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:22925 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 705 OF 2025 Sumedh s/o Madhukar Waghmare ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1573 OF 2025 IN ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 705 OF 2025 Sudhir Shravan Lomte ... Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and another ... Respondents .....

Mr. S. D. Kamble and Mr. V. P. Kadam, Advocates for the Applicant in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 705 of 2025. Mr. Aniket N. Singh, Advocate for the Applicant in Cri.Application No. 1573 of 2025.

Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for Respondent-State.

.....

CORAM :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

Reserved on : 21.08.2025 Pronounced on : 22.08.2025 ORDER :

1.

Criminal Application No. 1573 of 2025 is at the instance of the original informant seeking permission to assist the learned APP in prosecuting the Anticipatory Bail Application. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the applicant-informant is permitted to assist the learned APP. Criminal Application No. 1573 of 2025 is

-2accordingly disposed off.

2.

Apprehending arrest in Crime No. 0286 of 2025 registered at M.I.D.C. (Waluj) Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for offences under Sections 108, 115(2), 3(5), 352, 85 of BNS, present application for anticipatory bail is pressed into service. 3.

Learned counsel pointed out that, there is false implication. Marriage of informant's daughter was performed with applicant on 26.05.2024. There are allegations that, after few days, all in-laws started harassing and taunting his daughter for not doing any work. Learned counsel submitted that allegations are non specific and general and are directed against all family members. Subsequently allegations are levelled for demand of Rs.50,000/-. That, Supriya allegedly committed suicide on 27.08.2025. Report is lodged alleging harassment and cruelty resulting into suicide. According to learned counsel, all allegations are false, baseless and out of annoyance of losing daughter. There was no demand or ill-treatment as alleged. That, there was no occurrence to draw inference about abetment or inducement to commit suicide. Nothing is to be recovered from the applicant and as he is ready to co-operate in the investigation, learned counsel urges for relief of bail. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that,

-3co-accused Latabai, Madhukar and Sachin are already granted bail by trial court itself.

4.

Learned APP opposed on the ground that, barely for few days after marriage, ill-treatment began. Initially, there was only mental harassment on domestic count, but subsequently, demand of Rs.50,000/- was made for purchasing plot. For not meeting said demand, cruelty was inflicted and getting fed up of the same, it is alleged that, deceased hanged herself.

5.

Perused the FIR dated 28.03.2025. Marriage of present applicant with deceased Supriya seems to be of 26.05.2024. Father informant has reported police that after few days, husband and inlaws started saying that Supriya merely sits in the house and eats, and suggested her to wake up early, do household work and even work in company and hand over the salary to them. Then, allegations are made that, for purchasing plot, Rs.50,000/- were demanded and it is alleged that, Supriya was subjected to physical and mental cruelty for not meeting above demand. However, who amongst the accused did what, and where the plot was sought to be purchased, is not clarified. As pointed out, informant has merely stated that, because of physical and mental cruelty, few days back, his daughter expressed her desire

-4to commit suicide. Informant has stated that his daughter was under stress and he therefore called her on 27.03.2025, but her phone was found to be switched off and therefore he asked his elder daughter Mangal and then he learnt that Supriya had hanged herself and was taken to hospital. Resultantly, above report seems to have been lodged.

6.

Learned APP submitted that there are statements of relatives and neighbours about mal treatment meted out to deceased. On going through the statement of Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, who is said to be a neighbour, he has given statement that, there was harassment at the hands of husband and in-laws along with demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing plot. He has claimed even noticing beating being given to Supriya. Even statements of relatives are on record. Therefore, taking above material into consideration and as applicant is husband, though others are released, he is not entitled for relief of anticipatory bail as prayed for. Hence, following order :

ORDER

The application is rejected.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.] vre