Allowed

Dilip Pandhari Jabhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Oct 2024ABA/521/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this anticipatory bail application, the Court considered whether to allow the applicant apprehending arrest for abetment of suicide and criminal conspiracy. The judge noted the applicant was not a family member, the call records did not prove harassment, and the interim order of March 28, 2024 deserved confirmation.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed by confirming interim order dated 28.03.2024; applicant directed to cooperate in investigation.

Dilip Pandhari Jabhade Vs the State of… — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

941-ABA-521-2024.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-AUG:23851

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 521 OF 2024

¶5

Dilip Pandhari Jabhade

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State Of Maharashtra

¶8

¶9

• Mr. U. L. Telgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicant

¶10

• Mr. C. V. Bhadane, APP for the Respondent/State *******

¶11

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J
DATE:OCTOBER 04, 2024

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

1.Applicant apprehends arrest in connection with

¶14

with C.R. No. 127 of 2024 registered with Ahmedpur
Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable
under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

¶15

2.First informant is father of Aarti. According

¶16

to him, Aarti got married with Ganesh in the year 2009
and since then, she was residing at her matrimonial
home. There is allegation in the FIR against present
Applicant that he used to visit house of deceased and

¶17

cause mental harassment to her. There is also
allegation against him that he tried to establish close

¶18

PAGE 1 OF 3

¶19

Umesh

¶20

941-ABA-521-2024.odt

¶21

relations with her. It is further stated that deceased

¶22

was harassed by the in-laws for this reason. On
26.02.2023 deceased committed suicide.

¶23

3.Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that
Applicant is not member of the family and that he has
no concern with the alleged harassment caused by the
in-laws of the deceased to her.

¶24

4.Learned APP opposed the application by drawing
attention of the Court to the call record between
deceased and present Applicant. This, according to him,
indicates that the Applicant was continuously calling
her and thereby causing harassment to her. Reference
is also made to the statement of witnesses who vouched
accordingly.

¶25

5. Applicant is not the member of family. There is allegation against in-laws of the deceased who caused ill-treatment to the deceased over alleged relationship with deceased and present Applicant. Prima facie perusal of the call record indicates that the deceased and Applicant were continuously in contact Umesh PAGE 2 OF 3

¶26

941-ABA-521-2024.odt

¶27

with each other for a long period. The duration of the
talk, as indicated therein, is also sufficient to show
that there is possibility off some relationship between
them. There is no other material on record to indicate
that the present Applicant was causing any sort of
harassment to her. Merely because there were calls
between them, it cannot be said that Applicant was
harassing her and thereby abeted act of commission of
suicide by the deceased. In fact a possibility exist
that the said relationship was known to the in-laws and
which could be reason for deceased to end her life.

¶28

6.Having regard to the nature of offence,
nothing is to be recovered from the Applicant. He has
no criminal history. He is not likely to flee from
justice. Applicant was granted interim relief and was
directed to cooperate in the investigation. He has
accordingly appeared before the investigating officer.
As such, application deserves to be allowed. In the
result, application is allowed by confirming interim
order dated 28.03.2024.

¶29

PAGE 3 OF 3

¶30

Umesh

Dilip Pandhari Jabhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Pandhari Jabhade v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

President Secretary Sri Bruhanmath Hotgi and Anr. vs Pandurang Chintaman Kengar and Ors.

Ananda Kaduji Korde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ravikant Shridharrao Dahale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rohit Shekhar Bajaj and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Dipak Ramnivas Shillak Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sagar Girdharilal Shillak Vs Dipak Ramnivas Shillak and Another