Jayesh Ramesh Ankhule v. State Of Maharashtra Thr Pso Umarkhed, Dist. Yavatmal
2026:BHC-NAG:2185
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION [B.A.] NO. 100 OF 2026 Jayesh Ramesh Ankhule -- VERSUS -- State of Maharashtra __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.
and Registrar's Orders.
Mr. J.D. Bastin, Advocate for the Applicant.
Mr. A.R. Chutke, AP.P. for the Non-applicant/State. CORAM :
M.M. NERLIKAR, J.
DATE :
FEBRUARY 09, 2026.
Heard.
2.
The present application is filed seeking regular bail in Crime No.611/2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), registered with Police Station Umarkhed, District Yavatmal. 3.
The applicant is the husband. The marriage was solemnized on 24/05/2023 and the deceased has committed suicide on 09/09/2025. 4.
The F.I.R. states that Pranjali Jayesh Ankhule, the daughter of Gajanan Gulabrao Sapkal, was allegedly subjected to harassment and restrictions by her in-laws, including her husband, mother-in-law, and sister-in-law. It is reported that
she faced verbal abuse, threats, and limitations on her personal freedom, including restrictions on communication and movement. The F.I.R. further mentions that these incidents occurred over a period of time and included disputes related to property, financial matters, and personal autonomy. Based on these allegations, the F.I.R. was lodged.
5.
The learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that there is no evidence in the entire charge-sheet to show that there was harassment at the hands of the present applicant. He further submits that there was no reason for the suicide when the couple was living happily and had begotten a male child. He further submits that the cause of death is due to asphyxia due to hanging, however, there is no instigation on the part of the present applicant, and there is no provocation by the applicant to connect him with the said suicide. Therefore, he submits that the ingredients of either Sections 304-B or 306 are not made out, and the applicant may be released on bail.
6.
On the other hand, the learned A.P.P.
vehemently opposes the application and submits that the Investigating Agency has recorded the statement of the sister, wherein she disclosed that, one month prior to the death, the deceased had stated over the mobile phone that the present applicant and her
mother-in-law were harassing her. He further submits that the said evidence has already been collected. The death occurred within seven years of marriage, and therefore, there will be a presumption against the present applicant. He further submits that the deceased committed suicide on 09/09/2025, whereas the marriage took place on 24/05/2023. Hardly even two years had passed, yet the applicant allegedly started ill-treating and harassing the deceased, which led her to commit suicide. Therefore, he submits that, considering the allegations and seriousness of the offence, the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
7.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the applicant as well as the learned A.P.P., admittedly, the death of the deceased is at the matrimonial house. The marriage between the couple was solemnized on 24/05/2023, from the wedlock one male child was born, however, the deceased has committed suicide on 09/09/2025. After consideration of the material placed before me, specifically, the statement of the sister, wherein she has disclosed that there was harassment at the hands of the present applicant and the mother-in-law, however, there is no proximity between the alleged incident of harassment and the suicide. Further, it is to be noted that between these two years, there is no
complaint from the deceased or from the mother and father of the deceased. Considering this fact, and the fact that the applicant was arrested on 14/09/2025 and the investigation is complete and charge-sheet is filed, I am inclined to grant bail on imposing stringent conditions. Hence, the following order:-
O R D E R
(i) The Criminal Application is allowed;
(ii) The applicant/accused (Jayesh Ramesh Ankhule) be released on regular bail in connection with Crime No.611/2025 registered with Police Station Umarkhed, District Yavatmal, for the offence punishable under Sections 80(2), 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), on his furnishing a P.R. bond of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty Five Thousand Rupees) with one solvent surety in the like amount;
(iii) The accused shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also shall not tamper with the evidence;
(iv) The accused shall provide his residential address and cell number to Police Station concerned and shall not change his place
of residence without prior intimation to the Investigating Agency;
(v) The accused shall attend each and every date of trial regularly. If he fails to attend the trial for two consecutive dates, or fails to comply with the aforesaid conditions, his default would entail the State to ask for cancellation of bail or even trial Court suo moto take cognizance of this and cancel the bail;
(vi) Pending Misc. Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
8.
The observations of this Court are prima facie in nature. The Trial Court shall not be influenced by the observations of this Court and the observations are restricted to this bail application only.
[ M.M. NERLIKAR, J ] Piyush Mahajan