Karbhari Laxman Chaudhari And ANR v. The State Of Maharashtra

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.519 OF 2026

1. Karbhari Laxman Chaudhari

2. Rohit Karbhari Chaudhari ...Applicants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

...Respondent

Mr. Satyavrat Joshi i/b. Ms. Shivani Sunil Kondekar, for the Applicants.

Ms. R. V. Newton, APP, for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Ganesh Gole a/w. Mr. Ateet Shirodkar, for the First Informant. Mr. D. B. Baigire, API, Uruli Kanchan Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, present.

CORAM:

MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED :

26th FEBRUARY 2026 PC:- 1.

Heard Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants, Ms. Newton, learned APP appearing for the Respondent-State and Mr. Gole, learned Counsel appearing for the First Informant.

2.

This application is filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.22 of 2026 registered with Uruli Kanchan

Police Station, Pune Rural, Pune, for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 108, 85, 89, 352, 351(3), 115(2) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No.2 of the Anticipatory Bail Application, which reads as under: "2. Story of the prosecution, briefly stated, is as follows:

I. The First Informant, one Mrs. Hemlata Balasaheb Magar, who is the mother of the deceased Dipti Rohan Chaudhari has filed the present FIR alleging cruelty and dowry harassment by her in laws.

II. It is alleged that the marriage of deceased Dipti with accused Rohan Chaudhari was solemnized on 25.12.2019 as per customs and rituals. It is alleged that at the time of marriage, approximately 50 tolas of gold were allegedly given as stridhan to the deceased.

III. It is further alleged that thereafter the husband Rohan Chaudhari started doubting the character of the deceased and began harassing her mentally and physically.

IV. It is further alleged that the husband along with the mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother-in-law used to say that the deceased was not suitable for their family.

V. It is further alleged that the accused persons taunted the deceased by stating that she did not know cooking, washing clothes or household work. VI. It is further alleged that the deceased informed the First Informant about the said harassment. VII. It is further alleged that during the marriage the deceased became pregnant and delivered a female child on 04.05.2023. It is alleged that the in-laws of the deceased became unhappy on learning that the child was a girl.

VIII. It is alleged that after a few days the deceased visited the First Informant and disclosed continued harassment. It is further alleged that the husband demanded Rs.10 lakh from the First Informant for starting a new business.

IX. It is alleged that the First Informant paid Rs.10 lakh in cash to the husband of the deceased. It is further alleged that thereafter the husband again started harassing the deceased and demanded Rs.25 lakh for purchase of a four-wheeler.

X. It is further alleged that as per the demand the First Informant paid Rs.25 lakh in cash to the husband. It is further alleged that the gold ornaments given at the time of marriage were taken away by the husband and mother-in-law.

XI. It is further alleged that when the deceased inquired about the ornaments, she was told that the same were mortgaged for business purposes.

XII. It is alleged that in October 2025 the mother-inlaw became Sarpanch of Sortapwadi Gram

Panchayat. It is alleged that thereafter further monetary demands were made from the deceased. XIII. It is alleged that the husband publicly insulted the deceased by stating that people beg for her mother and that she was treated like a beggar. XIV. It is further alleged that the mother-in-law also abused the deceased and the people of the First Informant's house.

XV. It is alleged that in November 2025 the deceased visited the First Informant while she was pregnant and disclosed the harassment, XVI. It is further alleged that at that time the husband forcibly wanted to determine the gender of the fetus. It is further alleged that when the deceased refused, the husband beat and abused her, XVII. It is alleged that the husband, mother-in-law, father- in-law and brother-in-law thereafter pressured the deceased to abort the fetus against her will.

XVIII. It is further alleged that when it was found that the fetus was female, the accused persons forcibly caused abortion of the deceased.

XIX. It is further alleged that thereafter the deceased remained in shock and under distress. XX. It is also alleged that the accused persons demanded that the deceased should bring her share from the "Dhruv Angan" row house scheme. It is

alleged that the accused persons repeatedly harassed the deceased for money and property. XXI. It is alleged that between 25.12.2019 and 24.01.2026 the deceased was subjected to continuous cruelty by her husband and in-laws. XXII. It is alleged that being fed up with the harassment and torture, the deceased committed suicide by hanging at her residence.

XXIII. It is alleged that the in-laws of the deceased are responsible for the suicide of the deceased and based on these allegations the First Informant lodged the present FIR against the Applicants." 4.

It is the submission of Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicants that the main allegations in the FIR are against the husband and mother-in-law of the deceased. He submits that the Applicant No.1 is father-in-law and the Applicant No.2 is brother-in-law of the deceased. He submits that the Applicants are not involved in the crime and will co-operate with the investigation. He relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr.1 and contended that to attract the offence of abatement of suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835

proximity and such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

5.

It is the submission of Ms. Newton, learned APP and Mr. Gole, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2-First Informant that the offence is very serious. Demands of huge amount of Rs.35,00,000/- were made and apart from that, 50 tolas gold was demanded and in spite of payment of dowry of Rs.35,00,000/- and 50 tolas of the gold, the deceased was subjected to cruelty. It is further submitted that the deceased was five months pregnant. A sex determination test was conducted and, upon discovering the fetus was female, the deceased was forced to undergo an abortion. It is submitted that the offence is very serious and therefore, the custodial interrogation is necessary. 6.

Perusal of the record shows that the accused No.1-husband and accused No.2-mother-in-law of the deceased are already arrested. The accused No.3 is father-in-law and accused No.4 is brother-in-law, who are the present Applicants. The family of the

Applicants is very influential as the accused No.2 has been elected as Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Sortapwadi. The offence is very serious. After a sex determination test was conducted and, upon discovering the fetus was female, the deceased was forced to undergo an abortion. Thus, the custodial interrogation in this case is absolutely esssential. The deceased died by suicide on 24th January 2026. She was subjected to continuous harassment. She visited the residence of parents in November 2025. She disclosed that she was forced to undergo an abortion. Thereafter, also she was subjected to harassment. Thus, prima facie, the observations in the case of Prakash (supra) will not apply to the present case. In any case, the same is concerning abatement of suicide. The other offences are also very serious including that after a sex determination test was conducted and, upon discovering the fetus was female, the deceased has been forced to undergo an abortion. 7.

Accordingly, no case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail.

8.

The Anticipatory Bail Application is rejected. Digitally signed by SONALI MILIND PATIL Date:

2026.03.09 09:45:51 +0530 [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] SONALI MILIND PATIL