Allowed¶20

Kailash Pida Pawara v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC29 Jan 2026ABA/157/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail allowed; Aurangabad bench, R. M. Joshi, J., 09-06-2026; ABA No. 157/2026; offences under BNS Ss. 82(1), 108, 115(2), 351(2), 352; wife's suicide by poison on 23.11.2025 after alleged liquor-fuelled abuse following second marriage; no complaint during victim's lifetime; daughters did not support FIR case before Magistrate; no criminal antecedents; no flight risk; final order in terms of interim relief dated 29.01.2026; no precedents cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Applicant enlarged on pre-arrest bail in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 29.01.2026. ¶20

Kailash Pida Pawara vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Applicant enlarged on pre-arrest bail in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 29.01.2026.

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant should be enlarged on pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 0628/2025 (Shahada Police Station, District Nandurbar) for offences punishable under Sections 82(1), 108, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶9

Court's answer

In deciding an application for pre-arrest bail, the Court is required to consider the nature of the offence as well as the necessity of custodial interrogation.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The marriage between the deceased and the applicant was about 15 to 16 years old, and even if the applicant's second marriage is accepted, it took place about one and a half years prior to the occurrence of the incident.

¶19

Key takeaways

As regards the allegations of abuse and assault upon the victim, no complaint in that regard was lodged during the lifetime of the victim.ratio¶19
The daughters of the deceased did not support the case of the prosecution in their statements recorded before the Magistrate.ratio¶19
Considering that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not likely to flee from justice, the Court found it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on pre-arrest bail.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Anticipatory bail – Applicant sought pre-arrest bail in Crime No. 0628/2025, Shahada Police Station, District Nandurbar, for offences punishable under Sections 82(1), 108, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita – Prosecution case that the victim-wife, married to the applicant for about 15 to 16 years, was subjected to abuse and assault under the influence of liquor after the applicant's second marriage (performed about one and a half years prior to the incident), and committed suicide on 23.11.2025 by consuming a poisonous substance – Held, in deciding a pre-arrest bail application the Court considers the nature of the offence and the necessity of custodial interrogation – No complaint of abuse or assault was lodged during the lifetime of the victim, and the daughters of the deceased did not support the prosecution case in their statements recorded before the Magistrate – Applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not likely to flee from justice – Fit case to enlarge the applicant on pre-arrest bail – Application allowed in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 29.01.2026.

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:22483

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

920 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 157 OF 2026

¶4

KAILASH PIDA PAWARA VERSUS

¶5

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

¶6

Mr. A. V. Wadwale, Advocate for Applicant Mr. M. A. Aher, APP for the Respondent/State

¶7

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 9^th JUNE, 2026

¶8

P. C. :-

¶9

The applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with the Crime No. 0628/2025, registered with Shahada Police Station, District Nandurbar for the offences punishable under Sections 82(1), 108, 115(2), 351(2), 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

¶10

In short, it is the case of the prosecution that the victim, Mendribai, was married to the applicant about 15 to 16 years prior to the incident. Out of the said wedlock, they had three children, the youngest son however died about four years back. It is alleged that approximately one and a half years prior to the incident, the applicant performed a second marriage. Thereafter, he allegedly subjected the victim to abuse and assault under the influence of liquor. About three months prior to the incident, the victim had gone to her parental home; however, upon the applicant assuring

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

920 ABA 157.2026.odt

¶13

that he would treat her properly, she was permitted to return to her matrimonial home. On 23.11.2025, the victim committed suicide by consuming a poisonous substance.

¶14

Learned Advocate for the applicant submits that the marriage between the applicant and victim is 15 years old. According to him there are no specific allegations against the applicant as to when the applicant abused and had beaten the victim under influence of liquor. According to him, the marriage performed by the applicant with another woman cannot become a ground since the said marriage is performed one and half year before the occurrence of the incident. According to him the daughters of the victim and applicant have not supported the allegations. It is his submission that in any case considering the stage of investigation, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. He further submits that the applicant has no criminal history and he is not likely to flee from justice.

¶15

Learned APP opposed the application by citing the seriousness of the crime. It is his contention that, in the statements recorded before the police, the daughters of the applicant supported the allegations made in the First Information Report; however, in their statements recorded before the Magistrate, they did not support the same. It is his further submission that, at the relevant time, the daughters were studying in an Ashram School and, therefore, their statements before the Magistrate may not carry much

¶16

2 of 3

¶17

920 ABA 157.2026.odt

¶18

relevance. It is further submitted that, considering the statements of the witnesses regarding the harassment caused to the deceased, the prima facie involvement of the applicant in the incident in question is made out.

¶19

For the purpose of deciding an application for pre-arrest bail, the Court is required to consider the nature of the offence as well as the necessity of custodial interrogation. In the present case, the marriage between the deceased and the applicant was about 15 to 16 years old. Even if it is accepted that the applicant performed a second marriage, the same had taken place about one and a half years prior to the occurrence of the incident. As regards the allegations of abuse and assault upon the victim, no complaint in that regard was lodged during the lifetime of the victim. In this backdrop, the daughters of the deceased have not supported the case of the prosecution in their statements recorded before the Magistrate.

¶20

Having regard to these facts, and considering that the applicant has no criminal antecedents and is not likely to flee from justice, this Court finds it to be a fit case to enlarge the applicant on pre-arrest bail. In view of this, application stands allowed in terms of the interim relief granted vide order dated 29.01.2026

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

ssp

3 of 3

920 ABA 157.2026.odt

Kailash Pida Pawara v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Pida Pawara 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammed Amir Abid Ali vs State of Maharashtra

Ravindra Harishchandra Satam and Anr. vs Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd., Mumbai

Ateev Varjlal Gala vs State of Maharashtra

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Smt. Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Mr. Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.

Akhtari Begum Akil Ahmed Qureshi and Ors. vs Prasad M. Shetty and Anr.