Prasanna Chandrakant Puraji v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 134 OF 2026 Prasanna Chandrakant Pujari ...Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra and Anr.

...Respondents

_________________________________________________________________ Ms. Juhi Kadu a/w. Anand V. Ary a/w. Muskan N. i/by Aniket Vagal Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. B.B. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent-State.

Ms. Mrunmail K. Rokade i/by Rakesh Sonal a/w. Narayan Rokade, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date:

2026.05.06 11:59:02 +0530 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM _________________________________________________________________

CORAM

: SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.

DATE : 4th May, 2026.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the Applicant and learned APP for the State.

2.

By this application, the applicant is seeking regular bail in Crime No. 480 of 2025 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 85,80, 115(2), 352, 3(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(for short 'BNS'). 3.

It is prosecution's case that applicant is brother in law of the deceased. Due to not given sufficient dowry in marriage of accused No.1, applicant and co-accused mentally and physically harassed the

deceased and due to their continuous torture, deceased committed suicide. 4.

It is contention of learned counsel for the Applicant that Applicant is brother in law of the deceased. The co-accused having similar allegations, has been released on anticipatory bail. Applicant has no antecedents. Applicant is behind bars for more than 10 months. Investigating is completed and charge-sheet has been filed and requested to allow the application.

5.

It is contention of learned APP along with learned counsel for Respondent No.2 that Applicant is brother in law of the deceased. There are specific allegations against the Applicant that he mentally and physically tortured the deceased on account of not giving dowry in the marriage. If applicant is released on bail, he may abscond or threaten prosecution witnesses.

6.

I have heard both learned counsel. Perused charge sheet and documents produced on record. Applicant is behind bars for more than 10 months. Investigation is completed. Charge-sheet has been filed. The coaccused having similar allegations, has been released on anticipatory bail. Applicant has no antecedents. It may take time to conclude the trial. 7.

Considering these facts, I pass following order:

ORDER

(i) The Applicant- Prasanna Chandrakant Pujari be released on bail in Crime No. 480 of 2025 registered with Hadapsar Police Station, Pune, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.25,000/- with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount.

(ii) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and/or influence the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The Trial Court shall decide the case on its own merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. (iv) Applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required.

(v) Bail Application is allowed in the aforesaid terms. (SHIVKUMAR DIGE, J.)