Pushpa Parmeshwar Karde Vs the State of Maharashtra

The applicant has approached this court, seeking grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No. 0483 of 2025 registered with Bidkin Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences under Sections 108, 115-2 r/w. 3-5 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶15

The prosecution case is that, applicant Pushpa was having illicit relationship with another co-accused Vitthal, who was husband of the daughter of complainant. On account of such illicit relationship, there were frequent quarrels between the complainant’s daughter Sunita with her husband Vitthal. It is specifically stated in the FIR about the instances on which cruelty and harassment were meted out to Sunita by her husband co-accused Vithal, on account of illicit relationship with present applicant.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that, on 9.8.2025, Mr. Balu Butte had lodged a report in Bidkin Police Station, wherein, it was

¶17

{2}

¶18

947 SR.NO..odt

¶19

alleged that on 10.5.2025, informant’s daughter Sunita told him that her husband (Accused No.1 – Vitthal) is having love affair with his sister-inlaw i.e. present applicant. Thereafter, informant and his wife went to Ranjangaon Khuri, where they had given understanding to accused No.1 – Vitthal and took their daughter Sunita to their home. Theafter, accused No.1/Vitthal came to house of informant after 8 days and he took his wife Sunita with him. It is further alleged that, on 1.8.2025, father in law and husband of Sunita came to informant’s house for taking Sunita to their home. At that time, informant gave understanding to husband and father in law of Sunita not to harass her. It is further alleged that, on 6.8.2025, Sunita called the informant and informed that her husband went to Hyderabad on 5.8.2025. On 8.8.2025, around 4.15 p.m. father in law of Sunita informed the informant that his daughter has committed suicide by hanging. Her husband and her sister in law i.e. applicant are responsible for her suicide.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has no role in the abetment of commission of suicide by the daughter of the complainant Sunita. The suicide note seized by the prosecution during the course of investigation also does not attribute any role to the present applicant in abetment of suicide. It is submitted that the entire investigation is complete and charge sheet is already filed. The custodial interrogation of the applicant may not be necessary, particularly, in absence of any material collected in support of the allegations in the FIR.

¶21

As against this, the learned PP submits that though the charge sheet is filed against the applicant under Section 193 of Cr.P.C, the applicant has avoided arrest till date. The suicide note, though, does not make any mention of the name of the applicant to be the abettor, however, there are some torn pages in the diary written by the deceased, which may find his name. It is submitted that the allegations in the FIR

¶22

{3}

¶23

947 SR.NO..odt

¶24

are about abetment of commission of suicide on account of illegal relationship of the husband with present applicant Pushpa. He, therefore, submits that this is not a fit case, wherein, the accused may be released on anticipatory bail.

¶25

I have gone through the charge sheet now filed by the prosecution, against arrested accused Vithal, though there are allegations of instigation in the suicide note allegedly written by the deceased, there is no role attributed to the present applicant Pushpa, to be the abettor for commission of suicide. Other witness – Pramila, though has stated about the illicit relationship of Vitthal with present applicant Pushpa, however, there is nothing on record to show that the applicant had instigated the deceased or abetted commission of suicide in immediate proximity to the date of commission of suicide I.e on 8.8.2025.

¶26

Any further observations on merits of the matter may affect the prosecution case. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are prima facie in nature only for the purpose of deciding the present applicant. I am , therefore, inclined to allow the application, however, upon following conditions. Hence, following order :-

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

[I] In the event of arrest of the applicant, in connection with Crime No. 0483 of 2025 registered with Bidkin Police Station, Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences under Sections 108, 115-2 r/w. 3-5 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita.the applicant be released on bail on furnishing PR Bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one or more sureties in the like amount.

¶29

{4}

¶30

947 SR.NO..odt

¶31

[I] The applicant shall attend the concerned Police Station on every Monday, Thursday and Friday between 11.00 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. till filing of supplementary charge sheet and shall cooperate with the investigation.

¶32

[ii] The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence.

¶33

[iii] The application is disposed of.

¶34

[MEHROZ K. PATHAN] JUDGE.

¶35

grt/-

Pushpa Parmeshwar Karde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Parmeshwar Karde v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subhash Gopal Bhilala Vs the State of Maharashtra

Bharti Rajendra Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ishwarsingh Jaswantsingh Girniwale Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ramdas Madhavrao Korde vs Shrikant Sudhakar Dahale

Adil Bahoddin Jahagirdar vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ibrahim Dadabhai Shaikh vs the State of Maharashtra and Another