Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In an application for anticipatory bail, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 406, 498-A, 504 and 34, Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the Single Judge Bench of N.R. Borkar, J., declined to grant relief, holding that the conduct of the applicant, coupled with the nature of the allegations levelled against him, did not warrant release on anticipatory bail.
The complainant-wife had lodged an FIR against his husband, wherein she had alleged that after a few days of marriage, there was ill-treatment. She alleged that the applicant, on the instigation of other family members, used to beat her and did not pay any attention to her needs. Therefore, on one occasion, she had suffered a miscarriage. The applicant purportedly had an extramarital affair, and allegedly did not return the passport, streedhan, and important documents of the first informant, which were lying with him.
On the first date of hearing, the applicant submitted that he shall hand over the stridhan along with the documents, which were with him, to the informant. The Court, on the basis of this statement, granted protection to the applicant from being arrested. On a subsequent date, the first applicant submitted that she did not have the receipts for the stridhan, i.e. jewellery. However, she can produce certain photographs to show that she wore the said jewellery on certain occasions. The applicant submitted that the said streedhan or jewellery was not available with him, and he will compensate the informant in monetary form.
The Court noted that the applicant was now denying compensation to the informant against the said streedhan on the ground that the photograph of the jewellery submitted by the complainant-wife was not hers.
The Court, considering the conduct of the applicant and the nature of the allegations, held that it was not inclined to release the applicant.
Hence, the anticipatory bail application was rejected.
[Tirth Jagdishchandra Rawal v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 2147, decided on 23-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Prem T., i/b Shailendra Mishra and Associates, Advocate
For the respondent: S. V. Walve, APP for the Respondent/State; Gaurav Shukla a/w Devendra Shukla, Karan Vishwakarma, Hemant Shukla, Advocates; Sumit Shukla i/b Apex Juris LLP, Advocate for the Respondent 2
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
