Gaurav Kishor Thosar v. The State Of Maharashtra

2026:BHC-AUG:11548 (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD BAIL APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2026 Mr. Gaurav Kishor Thosar, Age:- 25 years, Occupation: Business, R/at- Sundar Moti Nagar, Savkheda Shivar, Jalgaon, Dist: Jalgaon.

..Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector Taluka Police Station, Jalgaon District Jalgaon.

..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.968 OF 2026 IN BAIL APPLICATION NO.258 OF 2026 BHAGWAN KADUBA BUDUKLE

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. N. S. Ghanekar h/f Mr. K. M. More and Mr. Shubham R, Zalte, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. A. R. Kale, APP for Respondent No.1.

Ms. Tanvi V. Jadhav, Advocate to Assist to PP for Respondent No.2. (Appointed) ...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.

DATED : 12th MARCH, 2026 ORDER:- 1.

The applicant seeks regular bail in connection with Crime No.295/2025 registered with Jalgaon Taluka Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 108, 80, 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(2) 2.

The investigation was set in motion on the basis of information given by Bhagwan Budukle alleging that his daughter Mayuri married with applicant. After marriage she started residing at her matrimonial house. Her brother-in-law Ganesh was keeping ill-eye towards Mayuri. It is alleged that inlaws of Mayuri raised demand of Rs.10,00,000/-. The informant paid Rs.8,00,000/- by cash and it was assured that Rs.2,00,000/- would be paid after some time. Thereafter, in-laws of Mayuri were pursuing demand of balance amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On 09.09.2025 since there was birthday of Mayuri, amount of Rs.650/- was transferred to applicant and informant had telephonic talk with Mayuri. On 10.09.2025, massage was given to informant that Mayuri committed suicide. When informant reached to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, he saw ligature mark on neck of deceased. 3.

The aforesaid information was culminated into registration of FIR No.295/2025 for aforesaid offences. The applicant came to be arrested on 12.09.2025. The investigation progressed and charge-sheet is also filed. The applicant preferred application for bail before Sessions Court, which came to be rejected. Hence, this application.

4.

Heard Mr. Ghanekar, learned Advocate appearing for applicant, Mr. Kale, learned APP for respondent-State and Ms.

(3) Tanvi Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2, who assisted PP.

5.

Mr. Ghanekar would submit that evidence on record is not sufficient to hold that applicant has abetted commission of suicide. The allegations in FIR are general and vague. He would submit that allegation regarding demand of Rs.10,00,000/- is absolutely false. The payment of Rs.8,00,000/- out of demand of Rs.10,00,000/- is not supported by documentary evidence. The applicant is behind bar for more than six months. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet is filed. There are no criminal antecedents to discredit applicant.

6.

Per contra, learned APP appearing for respondent-State and Ms. Jadhav, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 vehemently opposes application. Ms. Jadhav would submit that looking to nature of ligature mark, possibility of homicidal death cannot be ruled out. When police reached to spot, dead body of victim was laying on bed. She would further submit that victim was hardly aged about 23 years. She married on 10.05.2025. Since then, she was ill-treated and abetted to commit suicide. 7.

Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates appearing for respective parties, it can be observed that offence is registered under Sections 108 and 85 of BNS. The

(4) prosecution is not alleging homicidal death. The medical evidence on record also suggests that it is not case of homicidal death. The postmortem report does not show external injury that would suggest homicidal death.

8.

Apparently, deceased committed suicide within five months of marriage. Although FIR states about demand of Rs.10,00,000/- and part payment of Rs.8,00,000/-, such statement is not supported by documentary evidence. No specifications are given as to exact time, date and particulars of ill-treatment mated to deceased by in-laws. The FIR suggests that on 09.09.2025 birthday of deceased was celebrated and informant and other family members had telephonic conversation. As such, soon before death there is nothing to show that she was ill-treated or in-laws abetted commission of suicide. In entire FIR or statements of witnesses, no particulars of overt act of applicant are given. All allegations are common and omnibus against inlaws. 9.

The applicant is behind bar for more than six months. There are no criminal antecedents. The trial will take its own course. Looking to nature of offence and material on record, further detention of applicant would not be necessary. Resultantly, case is made out for grant of bail subject to certain conditions. Hence, following order:

(5)

ORDER

(i) Bail Application is allowed.

(ii) The applicant, Gaurav Kishor Thosar be released on bail in Crime No.295/2025 registered with Jalgaon Taluka Police Station, Dist. Jalgaon for offences punishable under Sections 108, 80,85, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 on furnishing P.B. and S.B. of Rs.50,000/- (Rs.Fifty Thousand only) on following condition:

a.

The applicant shall not tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner.

b.

The applicant shall attend each and every effective date before the Trial Court.

c.

The applicant shall not indulge in criminal activity. (iii) Application is disposed of.

(iv) In view of disposal of Bail Application, pending Criminal Application to assist PP also stand disposed of. (v) The remuneration of Ms. Tanvi Jadhav, learned Advocate appointed to represent cause of respondent no.2 is fixed to Rs.10,000/-. The Secretary, High Court Legal Services SubCommittee is requested to pay the same accordingly. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/March-2026