Jaybuddha S/O Sankalp Burchunde v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Wani, Dist Yavatmal
2025:BHC-NAG:11273 1 6.aba.708.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.708/2025 Jaybuddha s/o. Sankalp Burchunde Vs.
State of Maharashtra ................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order or directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Mr. M. V. Rai, Advocate for Applicant.
Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.P.P. for Non-applicant/State. CORAM :
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.
DATED :
03.11.2025 1.
The applicant has apprehension of arrest in Crime No.526/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 80(2), 115(2), 352, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
2.
The allegations are that the applicant is husband of the deceased. The deceased has committed suicide within six months from the date of her marriage.
3.
The learned Counsel for the applicant has stated that the deceased has committed suicide at her maternal home. She stayed only for 3 months after her marriage and after 3 months she went to her parents house and there she had committed suicide. Suicide was committed on 19th July 2025 and the report was lodged on 23rd July 2025. 4.
The learned A.P.P. opposed the application stating that the applicant is the husband and the deceased has committed suicide within a period of 7 months after her marriage.
2 6.aba.708.25.odt 5.
Heard both the learned Counsel for the respective parties.
6.
Considering the fact that the deceased was staying at her maternal home since 3 months prior to her suicide and the period, the interim protection granted on 19th September, 2025 is confirmed on the same terms and conditions.
7.
The application stands disposed of.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.)
1. Later on at 2.30 pm. the intervenor and the counsel for the applicant came together. The intervenor has filed the reply along with reply has filed N.C. registered on 11.10.2025 against unknown person. In the said N.C, it is mentioned that said unknown persons beat the father of the deceased and they asked him to take back the case lodged against the applicant. The learned counsel for the intervenor has stated that as the N.C. is registered and the applicant is threatening the complainant, requested to reject the application.
2. Herd both the sides. After granting interim protection on 19.09.2025 this N.C is registered. On perusal of N.C, it appears that it is against un-known persons, only because the name of this applicant is mentioned, the application cannot be rejected. Considering the stay of the deceased at the house of the applicant and the suicide was committed after three months stay at maternal home, this is
3 6.aba.708.25.odt a fit case to protect the applicant by confirming the anticipatory bail on the same conditions imposed in the order dated 19.09.2025. Hence, the application is allowed and disposed of.
(MRS.VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) Kavita