Allowed¶19

Prashant Limbraj Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Bombay HC27 Jan 2026ABA/377/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

anticipatory bail; pre-arrest bail; Prashant Limbraj Rathod; Crime No. 0220/2023; Bhada Police Station; District Latur; Sections 498-A, 377, 313, 323, 504, 506, 34 IPC; dowry demand; abortion by physical assault 03.06.2022; unnatural sex; medical history 14.10.2022; charge-sheet filed 21.12.2023; charge framed; custodial interrogation not necessary; police personnel; interim relief confirmed; application allowed; Bombay High Court Aurangabad Bench; R. M. Joshi; 8 June 2026.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; interim relief (anticipatory bail) stands confirmed. ¶19

Prashant Limbraj Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:22088

¶2

aba377.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

9 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 377 OF 2024

¶5

Prashant Limbraj Rathod ….Applicant

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & another …..Respondents

¶8

Mr. Shritej Surve, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. S. B. Narwade, APP for the State. Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Informant.

¶9

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 8^th JUNE, 2026. PER COURT :

¶10

Applicant has preferred this application seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Crime No. 0220/2023, registered with Bhada Police Station, District Latur, for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 377, 313, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶11

First Information Report is lodged by the wife of the applicant alleging that she was married to the applicant on 06.02.2022. She alleged against the applicant and others that they abused and assaulted her on account of demand of dowry. There is specific allegation against the present applicant with regard to causing

¶12

¶13

aba377.24.odt

¶14

abortion of the informant by physically assaulting her on 03.06.2022. It is also alleged against him that he had extra marital relations with another woman. On the basis of these allegations, offence came to be registered against the applicant and others.

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this is a case wherein applicant and the family members are falsely implicated. According to him, the First Information Report came to be quashed by this Court against the co-accused. It is his contention that there is delay in lodging of the report so also considering the fact that now the charge has already been framed by the Trial Court, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary.

¶16

Learned APP and learned counsel for the informant opposed the application. It is their contention that a specific history was given by the informant to the Medical Officer on 14.10.2022 indicating that she was being assaulted by the present applicant and was subjected to unnatural sex.

¶17

There is no dispute about the fact that the investigation into the crime is completed long back and the charge-sheet was filed on

¶18

aba377.24.odt

¶19

21.12.2023. Charge has been framed by the Trial Court. As far as custodial interrogation of the applicant is concerned, the prosecution was unable to show any reason therefor. Needless to say that applicant cannot be denied pre-arrest bail in case he makes out a case with regard to his custodial interrogation being not necessary. Applicant is a police personnel. He is not likely to flee from justice. Having regard to the time lapsed between grant of interim relief and decision of this application, this is a fit case for confirmation of the interim relief. Hence, application stands allowed. Interim relief stands confirmed.

¶20

dyb

Prashant Limbraj Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashant Limbraj Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Another

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

Balu Shrimant Nanaware vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Msrtc), Nashik Thr.Divisional Controller vs Nathu Shivram Jagtap(Deceased-Deleted and Anr.)

Nathu Shivram Jagtap(Deceased-Deleted and Anr.) vs Divisional Controller,Maharashtra State Road Road Transport Corporation

Suresh Parmeshwar Bhilare vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Reliance General Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Nabanita Sujit Bardhan and Ors.

Devendra Mahendra Singh vs State of Maharashtra