Allowed¶A

Sandeepkumar Lavkush Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Feb 2026ABA/447/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail ALLOWED — Bombay HC, Anticipatory Bail Application No. 447 of 2026, decided 24.02.2026 (N.R. Borkar, J.); Sandeepkumar L. Chaudhari v. The State of Maharashtra; Crime No. 806 of 2025, Tulinj Police Station; Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; dying declarations dated 17.11.2025 and 20.11.2025 — first devoid of incriminating material, second alleging demand of money but prima facie no harassment; release on P.R. Bond Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in like amount.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail: in the event of arrest in C.R. No. 806 of 2025 registered at Tulinj Police Station, release on executing a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount. ¶A

Sandeepkumar Lavkush Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶A

Issue for consideration

Whether the applicant, apprehending arrest in Crime No. 806 of 2025 of Tulinj Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is entitled to anticipatory bail. +1 more

¶3

Court's answer

Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the Court was inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail.

¶8

Ratio / Principle

In the first Dying Declaration dated 17th November 2025, nothing incriminating is attributed to the present applicant.

¶8

Key takeaways

In the second dying declaration dated 20th November 2025, there are allegations of demand of money.ratio¶8
Prima facie, the second dying declaration contains no allegations of harassment against the applicant.ratio¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Sandeepkumar L. Chaudhari v. The State of Maharashtra — Bombay High Court (N.R. Borkar, J.), Anticipatory Bail Application No. 447 of 2026, decided 24.02.2026. The applicant apprehended arrest in Crime No. 806 of 2025 of Tulinj Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The deceased, the applicant's wife, was alleged to have been harassed through suspicion of her character and demands of money to purchase a flat, and allegedly consumed poison on 17.11.2025, dying on 21.11.2025 during treatment. The Court noted that the first dying declaration (17.11.2025) attributed nothing incriminating to the applicant, while the second (20.11.2025), though alleging demand of money, did not prima facie allege harassment. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Court allowed the application and directed that, in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on a P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.

¶1

90-aba-447-26.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 447 OF 2026

¶3

Sandeepkumar L. Chaudhari V/s.

¶4

The State of Maharashtra

¶5

…Applicant

¶6

...Respondent.

¶7

Mr. Sumit D. Sharma (through VC) a/w. Ms Neha Balani for the Applicant.

¶8

Mr. S.R. Agarkar, APP for the Respondent/State. PSI Jadhwar G.S, Tulinj Police Station is present.

¶9

CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 24.02.2026.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Mentioned out of turn.

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant seeks leave to place on record the copy of order dated 12^th February 2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Vasai below Exhibit-1 in Cri. Bail Application (ABA) No.1825 of 2025. Leave as sought is granted. Necessary amendment shall be carried out forthwith.

¶13

3. This is an application for anticipatory bail.

¶14

The applicant is apprehending his arrest in Crime No. 806 of 2025 of registered at Tulinj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

1/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

90-aba-447-26.doc

The deceased was the wife of the present applicant. It is the case of the prosecution that the applicant used to harass the deceased by suspecting her character. It is alleged that the applicant used to demand money from the deceased to purchase a flat and upon her refusal, he used to ill treat her. It is alleged that due to the said harassment on 17^th November 2025 she consumed the poison and died on 21^st November 2025 while undergoing treatment.

¶19

I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant and the learned APP for the respondent / State.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR came to be lodged after 10 days of the alleged incident, which shows that afterthought allegations are made against the applicant. It is submitted that there is no need of custodial interrogation and the applicant is ready and willing to cooperate in the investigation.

¶21

On the other hand learned APP for the respondent/State has drawn my attention to the two Dying Declarations recorded on 17^th November 2025 and 20^th November 2025. I have perused the said Dying Declarations. In the first Dying Declaration dated 17^th November 2025, nothing incriminating is attributed to the present applicant. In the second dying declaration dated 20^th November 2025, though there are allegations of demand of money, however, prima facie, it appears that there are no allegations of harassment. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of

2/3

Dinesh S. Sherla

90-aba-447-26.doc

the case, I am inclined to release the applicant on anticipatory bail. In the result, the following order is passed.

¶26

ORDER

¶27

A) The Application is allowed.

¶28

B) In the event of arrest of the applicant in C.R. No. 806 of 2025 of registered at Tulinj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety or two sureties in the like amount.

¶29

[N.R.BORKAR, J.]

¶30

3/3

¶31

Dinesh S. Sherla

Sandeepkumar Lavkush Chaudhari v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeepkumar Lavkush Chaudhari 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

Capital Business Co. Operative Society Ltd, through Mr Gurmeet Bawa vs the State of Maharashtra

Subbaraman G Anand Vilayannur vs State of Maharashtra

Uma Subbaraman vs State of Maharashtra

Amis Michael Lopes vs State of Maharashtra

Ashok Bhikaji Kale vs State of Maharashtra

Salman Anis Dolare vs the State of Maharashtra