IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 925 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2287 OF 2025 LATABAI DIGAMBARRAO JADHAV AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ... Mr. Anshuman B. Deshmukh, Advocate for Applicants Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the Respondent/State CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 28th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT :- 1. Applicant seeks pre arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 292 of 2025, registered with Begumpura Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. 2. The First Information Report is lodged by the mother of the deceased, claiming that the deceased was married to Vilas on 10.05.2007. The present applicants are the in-laws of the deceased. There is an allegation against them that they were demanding Rs.10 lakhs for construction of an upper floor of the house. There is also an allegation against the husband that, in the said state, on 08.12.2025, he assaulted the deceased. The deceased committed suicide at around 5.15 p.m. on the same day. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicants submits that, though the applicants are the in-laws of the deceased, they were not sharing the household with the deceased. It is his contention that the applicants and the deceased were residing separately. According to him, there is no substance in the allegation 925 ABA 2287.2025.odt 1 of 2 2026:BHC-AUG:38751 with regard to the demand of Rs.10 lakhs for construction of the upper floor, as the said upper floor had already been constructed seven to eight years ago. He, therefore, seeks confirmation of the interim order. 4. Learned APP opposed confirmation of the interim relief by referring to the allegations against the applicants in the First Information Report, which, according to her, are supported by the statements of witnesses, who are close relatives of the deceased. 5. Prima facie, perusal of the record indicates that the applicants and the deceased were not sharing the same household and were residing separately. The marriage was solemnized in the year 2007 and, as such, there is no presumption that the deceased committed suicide on account of harassment being caused to her in connection with a demand for dowry. This Court also finds substance in the contention of the learned Advocate for the applicants that it is questionable as to whether there could have been any demand of Rs.10 lakhs for construction of the upper floor, when the said floor had already been constructed seven to eight years ago. Having regard to these facts, this Court finds no impediment in confirming the interim relief. Hence, the application is allowed in terms of the interim order dated 24.12.2025. ( R. M. JOSHI, J.) ssp 925 ABA 2287.2025.odt 2 of 2