33-BA-579-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION BAIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2026 Asim Dagadu Shaikh … Applicant Versus. The State of Maharashtra And Anr. … Respondents ------- Ms. Indrayanee Pandit a/w Satyavrat Joshi and Priyesh More, for the Applicant. Mr. Chetan Gogawale, for the Respondent No. 2. Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 7th July, 2026. P.C. : 1. Heard, Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Chetan Gogawale learned Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ameet Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State. 2. By the present Application, the Applicant seeks Regular Bail under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 289 of 2025 registered at Parvati Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 108, Arjun 1 33-BA-579-2026.doc 115(2), 351(2) and 351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Crime No. 289 of 2025 is now registered as Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025 and is pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. (Sessions Court). 4. There are 3 Accused in the present crime. Applicant is Accused No. 1. 5. The Applicant was arrested on 13.09.2025 and is in jail as on date. The Bail Application No. 6358 of 2025 was rejected by the Sessions Court on 06.12.2025. 6. Case of the prosecution is that Sajida (deceased), the wife of the Applicant, committed suicide on account of harassment by the Applicant and the co-accused. 7. Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that as per the FIR, the deceased committed suicide on 08.09.2025, following an alleged quarrel with the Applicant 5 days prior to the incident. She submits that the ingredients required to Arjun 2 33-BA-579-2026.doc allege an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, are missing from the case. She further submits that the Applicant has been in jail for almost 10 months. 8. Mr. Ameet Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State, submits that the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of the date of marriage and therefore, the presumption under Section 113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would apply. 9. Mr. Chetan Gogawale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits that the deceased was compelled to take such a drastic step to end her life due to continuous harassment, ill-treatment and cruelty by the Applicant. He submits that if the Applicant is released on bail, the Applicant would tamper with evidence and threaten the witnesses. He submits that if this Court deems it fit to release the Applicant on bail, one condition this Court should consider is that the Applicant stay away from the District of Pune until the examination of the main witnesses (i.e. the deceased's parents, sister and cousin). 10. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Arjun 3 33-BA-579-2026.doc Advocates. 11. As per the allegations in the FIR, the deceased committed suicide on 08.09.2025, on account of an alleged quarrel that took place 5 days prior to 08.09.2025. The material on record does not indicate the presence of any suicide note. Prima facie, suicide by the deceased on 08.09.2025 is not proximately connected to the quarrel, which is said to have occurred five days prior. The material on record does not suggest that the deceased committed suicide as a direct result of the quarrel that took place five days prior to 08.09.2025. 12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M. P.,1 in paragraph No. 12 have observed as follows :- 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased "to go and die". For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when 1 (2002) 5 SCC 371 Arjun 4 33-BA-579-2026.doc reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked him "to go and die". Even if we accept the prosecution story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that the appellant had used the abusive language and also told the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts below. 13. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the present crime are granted ad- interim pre-arrest bail. Arjun 5 33-BA-579-2026.doc 14. Considering the above-said facts and the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (Supra), which decision is referred to in the subsequent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.2, the continuation of the Applicant in jail pending the trial in Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025 is not required. 15. The apprehension expressed by Mr. Chetan Gogawale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, can be allayed by imposing stringent conditions on the Applicant. 16. Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the Applicant, on instructions from the Applicant, submits that the Applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction of the District of Pune until the examination of the three (3) witnesses in Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025, referred to by Mr. Chetan Gogawale, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2. The statement is accepted. 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835 Arjun 6 33-BA-579-2026.doc 17. In view of the above, this Bail Application is allowed on the following terms :- (a) The Applicant in Crime No. 289 of 2025, registered with Parvati Police Station, is directed to be released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025. (b) The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade that person from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer. Applicant shall not tamper with evidence in any manner. (c) The Applicant shall, within (3) days of his release from jail, provide the Investigating Officer at Parvati Police Station, with his residential address and proof Arjun 7 33-BA-579-2026.doc thereof, his contact number and must inform the Investigating Officer at Parvati Police Station, of any changes to this information from time to time. (d) The Applicant shall regularly appear before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025, whenever the matter is fixed, unless specifically exempted. (e) The Applicant shall not enter the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Pune till the above- referred three (3) Witnesses are examined in Sessions Case No. 1169 of 2025, save and except for attending and appearing before the Sessions Court as and when the date is fixed. (f) The Applicant shall regularly appear before the Sessions Court unless specifically exempted. 18. Observations in this order are prima facie and limited to deciding the bail application and will not be treated as a finding on Arjun 8 33-BA-579-2026.doc merits. 19. Criminal Bail Application No. 579 of 2026 is disposed of. (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Arjun 9 ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Digitally signed by ARJUN KRISHNA RODGE Date: 2026.07.07 21:17:35 +0530