Baliram Namdeo Jagdale v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:15902
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 973 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 878 OF 2025 BALIRAM NAMDEO JAGDALE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. N. L. Jadhav APP for Respondent/State: Mr. N. B. Patil ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 24.06.2025 P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant is seeking bail as he was arrested on 07.04.2025 in connection with Crime No.0108/2025, registered with Patoda Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
3] The allegations is that the applicant and the other co-accused ill-treated the deceased and, as such, she has committed suicide. The case was registered against the accused, which includes the husband of the deceased Santosh Jagdale, mother-in-law of the deceased Devaibai Jagdale and father-in-law of the deceased Baliram Jagdale i.e. the present applicant, that they fought with the
deceased on multiple times and ill-treated the deceased, due to which the victim has committed suicide by consuming acid.
4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the co-accused, whose roles are higher than the present applicant i.e. husband and mother-in-law of the deceased have been granted anticipatory bail by this court by order dated 06.06.2025 in ABA/758/2025.
5] The learned APP has not disputed with the basic role of all the accused is the same except he submits that there is statement of Ashabai mother of the deceased as regards the present applicant i.e. the father-in-law of the deceased that whenever he came home late he would ask the deceased to prepare food for him, although, the deceased may be sleeping at that time.
6] Even the said statement cannot be considered far beyond what is stated against the other co-accused. So also, considering that the other co-accused has already been granted anticipatory bail by this court and the applicant is in jail from 07.04.2025 and the investigation is nearing completion. The allegations, prima facie, may not meet the requirement of Section 306 of IPC and the co-accused are also granted anticipatory bail and, thus, the applicant can also be granted bail.
7] In view of the above, the application is allowed in the following terms :
a] The applicant shall be released on bail in connection with Crime No.0108/2025, registered with Patoda Police Station, District Beed, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court. b] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall not contact the informant, in any manner whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial Court and he shall attend each and every date, unless exempted by the trial Court.
d] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution and he shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
e] The applicant, upon being released on bail, shall place on record of the trial Court the details of his Contact Number and residential address with updates in case of any change.
8] Needless to say, in case of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant shall be liable to be cancelled.
9] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
10] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe