Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), Mehroz K. Pathan, J. — Anticipatory Bail Application No. 929 of 2024 (decided 23.03.2026): Applicant Nagesh Bhagwan Dhawale, apprehending arrest in FIR No. 0255 of 2024 (dated 03.04.2024, M.I.D.C. Police Station, District Latur) for offences under Sections 498-A, 494, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (printed as 'Indian Penal Code, 1960'), sought confirmation of the interim protection dated 10.06.2024 (bail bond Rs. 15,000/- with one surety). Prosecution opposed, alleging cruelty over a dowry demand of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rs. 25,00,000/- allegedly paid on 09.07.2023; balance Rs. 15,00,000/-), suppression of a prior marriage, and threats to make the complainant's private photographs viral on social media. Holding that the applicant had cooperated, that the charge-sheet had been filed (R.C.C. No. 1059 of 2025, dated 07.10.2025) rendering further custodial interrogation unnecessary, and that prosecution apprehensions could be met by conditions, the Court exercised powers under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, allowed the application and confirmed the interim order with conditions (attendance at every trial date; no posting/circulation of the informant's photographs/videos on any social media platform; cooperation with further investigation; no pressurising of prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence; furnishing Aadhaar/PAN copies and contact details of two nearest relatives), warning that a single violation would entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation; observations prima facie only. WITH Application for Cancellation of Bail No. 117 of 2024 by Pratiksha W/o Nagesh Dhawale against the learned Sessions Court's anticipatory bail to Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 (husband's relatives): holding that a bail order is not to be interfered with in a routine or mechanical manner absent supervening circumstances, that the Sessions Court had acted with due application of mind, and that no such circumstances were shown to warrant interference under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court rejected the cancellation application as devoid of merit.