22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1983 OF 2026 Shekhar @ Chandrashekhar Jagannath Bhosale …Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra Through Yavat Police Station …Respondent AND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1984 OF 2026 1. Bhausaheb Dattoba Kamble 2. Laxmi Bhausaheb Kamble …Applicants Vs. The State of Maharashtra …Respondent Mr. Arjun S. Pawar, for the Applicants in both Applications. Ms. Savita M. Yadav, APP for the Respondent-State. PSI Akshay More, Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P. C.: 1. By these applications, the Applicants are seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with C.R. No. 565 of 2026 registered with Yavat Police Station, Pune Rural for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. It is the contention of Mr. Pawar, learned counsel appearing for the Applicants that the Applicants are not involved in the crime. Page 1 of 6 21st September, 2026 22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt He submits that there are total six accused. Two accused, namely, accused Nos.1 and 5 have been granted regular bail. The Applicant in Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1983 of 2026 i.e. Accused No.4 is the relative and not present when the alleged incident of assault on the deceased took place on 7th June 2026. He submits that as far as accused Nos. 2 and 3, they are in- laws and they are not involved in the crime. He submits that the main allegations are against the Accused No.1-husband who has been arrested and released on regular bail. He submits that in fact the charge-sheet is also filed against the arrested accused. Mr. Pawar, learned counsel submits that accused Nos. 2 and 3, i.e., in- laws went to Bangalore on 8th June 2026 by Udyan Express which train they boarded on 12:15 P.M. in the afternoon on 8th June, 2026 and therefore, submits that the in-laws are not involved in the crime. He further submits that there are no antecedents and therefore anticipatory bail application be allowed. 3. On the other hand, Ms. Yadav, learned APP states that the allegations are very serious. As far as the accused No.2, i.e., father- in-law, the allegations are that he was sexually harassing the victim. She points out that on 8th June 2026, the First Informant, 21st September, 2026 22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt i.e., mother of the deceased received a phone call at about 5:30 P.M. and the victim has informed her that on 7th June 2026, her husband, in-laws and Accused No.4, i.e., Shekhar Bhosale in Anticipatory Bail Application No. 1893 of 2026 assaulted the victim to such an extent that she became unconscious, however she was not taken to the hospital and that on 9th June 2026, early morning, the deceased died by suicide. Ms. Yadav, learned APP, therefore, submits that all accused are involved in very serious and therefore custodial interrogation is necessary. 4. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph No. 3 of order dated 13th July 2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati in Criminal Bail Application No. 441 of 2026, which reads as under :- “3] Informant's daughter namely Vaishnavi married to accused no.1 Ajinkya. After some days, dispute arose between the accused no.1 Ajinkya and victim Vaishnavi as accused no.1 Ajinkya was having extra marital relationship. Moreover, accused no.1 Ajinkya used to ill-treat the victim Vaishnavi physically and 21st September, 2026 22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt mentally. Moreover, accused no. 2 Bhauso used to look at the victim with bad intention and he used to physically and mentally harass her. On dt.08/06/2026 at about 05.30 pm informant received a phone call from the victim namely Vaishnavi. At that time, victim Vaishnavi informed to her that her husband, father in law, mother in law, brother in law and Shekhar Bhosale and Mr. Kadam severely beaten her and therefore, she became unconscious. At that time, informant consoled her. On dt. 09/06/2026 at about 08.30 am informant was at Bus Stand to proceed towards village Dalimbe to meet the victim. At that time, she received a phone call of accused no.1 Ajinkya. He informed the informant that victim Vaishnavi has committed suicide. Hence, informant lodged report about the said incident to Yavat Police Station.” 5. Thus, it is clear that the deceased was continuously harassed by the Applicant and co-accused. In fact, accused No.1, i.e., the husband of the deceased was having extra-marital relationship and 21st September, 2026 22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt therefore also the Applicant and co-accused were physically and mentally harassing the Applicant. In fact, the allegation is that Accused No. 2, i.e., father-in-law was sexually harassing the deceased. As per the prosecution case, on 7th June 2026, all the Applicants including the co-accused very severally assaulted the deceased to such an extent that she became unconscious. Inspite of that she was not taken to the Hospital. She died by suicide in the early morning on 9th June 2026. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Abhinav Mohan Delkar Vs. State of Maharashtra1 has held that Section 306 read with Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-established. It has been held that to attract the offence of abetment to 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 proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. 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. 1 (2026) 6 SCC 233 21st September, 2026 22 ABA-1983-2026=23 ABA-1984-2026.DOC skt 7. As noted hereinabove the Accused No.1 was having extra marital relationship and therefore all accused were physically and mentally harassing the victim. She was assaulted about 1 day earlier to such an extent that she became unconscious. Still she was not taken to the hospital. The father-in-law was sexually harassing her. Thus the observations of the Supreme Court in Abhinav Mohan Delkar (Supra) are squarely applicable to the present case. 8. Accordingly, no case is made for grant of anticipatory bail to any of the accused. The Anticipatory Bail Applications are dismissed. 9. The observations in this order are made for considering these Anticipatory Bail Applications. The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove and shall decide the case on its own merits. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] 21st September, 2026