Dipak Bhagwan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dipak Bhagwan Chaudhari Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim protection (anticipatory bail) granted by order dated 21.02.2025 confirmed, subject to conditions: attendance at the police station as and when required (including for voice sample), no tampering with prosecution evidence, no influencing of informant/witnesses, and co-operation with investigation and trial Court proceedings; breach renders the protection liable to cancellation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 5/2025 of Nandurbar City Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, is entitled to anticipatory bail.

Court's answer

Prima facie, considering the nature of allegations and the law laid down in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, it cannot be said that the applicant has instigated or driven the deceased to commit suicide; the applicant possibly wanted the money back.

¶13 (reproduced paras 3-5)

Ratio / Principle

In view of the applicant having attended the police station and co-operated with the investigation (voice samples yet to be taken), the interim protection granted by order dated 21.02.2025 stands confirmed.

Key takeaways

Condition (i): the applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigation officer for the purpose of voice sample and any other purpose.ratio¶23
Condition (ii): the applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner and shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.ratio¶26
Condition (iii): the applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail — Applicant apprehending arrest in Crime No. 5/2025 of Nandurbar City Police Station for offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — Allegation that applicant had handed money to the deceased for some gambling purpose which the deceased could not return, and that days before the incident the deceased was threatened by two persons in which the applicant is possibly involved — Following the law laid down in Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MONU/SC/0078/2025), prima facie it cannot be said that the applicant instigated or drove the deceased to commit suicide; the applicant possibly wanted the money back — Applicant attended the police station and co-operated with investigation; voice samples yet to be taken — Interim protection granted on 21.02.2025 confirmed subject to conditions (attendance for voice sample and as required, no tampering with evidence, no influencing informant/witnesses, co-operation with investigation and trial) — Violation of conditions renders protection liable to cancellation — Observations confined to disposal of the application; trial Court to proceed uninfluenced — Application disposed of.

137.25ABA

2025:BHC-AUG:6495

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

932 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 137 OF 2025

DIPAK BHAGWAN CHAUDHARI VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Advocate for Applicant : Mr.S.P.Pandit APP for Respondent-State : Mr.S.P.Sonpawale

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 06.03.2025

P.C. :

1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent-State.

2] The applicant is apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 5/2025, registered with Nandurbar City Police Station, Nandurbar, for the offence punishable under Section 108 and 3 (5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

3] This Court, by order dated 21.02.2025, has granted interim protection in favour of the applicant for the submissions and reasons stated in para nos. 3, 4 and 5, as noted below :

3]It appears that the applicant had handed
some money to the deceased for some gambling
purpose and the deceased was unable to return

2

137.25ABA

the said money. It is alleged that few days
prior to the incident, the deceased was
threatened by two persons in which possibly the
present applicant is involved.

4]The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that he would surrender his phone to
the police.

5]Considering the nature of allegations and
considering the law laid down in the case of
Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in MONU/SC/0078/2025, prima facie it
cannot be said that the applicant has
instigated or driven the deceased to commit
suicide. The applicant possible wanted the
money back.

4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid order, the applicant has attended the concerned police station and has co-operated with the investigation.

5] The learned APP submits that voice samples are yet to be taken from the applicant.

6] Considering this, the interim protection granted by order dated 21.02.2025 stands confirmed, in the following terms :

i] The applicant shall attend the concerned police station as and when required by the investigation officer for the purpose of voice sample and any other purpose.

3

137.25ABA

ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. He shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.

iii] The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.

7] In the event, the applicant violates any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.

8] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.

9] The application stands disposed of.

[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE

DDC