Lata Dagdu Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lata Dagdu Gaikwad vs the State of Maharashtra and Another — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Both Criminal Appeals allowed as prayed; the appellants - Pallavi Sachin Kanse and Lata Dagdu Gaikwad - released on bail in Crime No. 4 of 2026 (MIDC Latur Police Station, Dist. Latur) on furnishing P.B. & S.B. of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount, subject to: (i) not tampering with prosecution evidence in any manner till conclusion of trial; (ii) not entering the hostel premises of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Latur till conclusion of trial; (iii) not leaving India without prior permission of the Court.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellants are entitled to be released on bail in Crime No. 4 of 2026 notwithstanding the allegation that Appellant Pallavi scolded and beat the deceased/victim, the court testing prima facie whether the appellants abetted or instigated her suicide. +1 more

Court's answer

On perusal of the F.I.R. and witness statements, prima facie the appellants did not abet the deceased to commit suicide or instigate her to do any act/thing; the material shows only that the deceased did something wrong and was punished by Appellant Pallavi for it.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie it cannot be said that the victim was tortured and beaten; nor that Appellant Pallavi instigated or abetted the victim to commit suicide — punishing her for wrongdoing does not amount to instigation or abetment.

Key takeaways

Witness Snehal's statement (28.01.2026) discloses an earlier incident on 26.12.2025 of theft of food items by the victim, whose mother returned them; the 03.01.2026 incident was the second, so the appellants might have punished her for it; per Snehal, the victim's mother herself instructed the appellants to scold her if she acted with intent to harm someone — weighing against a finding of wrongful torture.ratio¶¶40
With the investigation completed and charge-sheet filed, and both appellants permanent residents of the Latur and Dharashiv districts respectively and serving with Jawahar Navodayz Vidyalaya, Latur, it would not be proper to detain the appellants behind bars for an indefinite period.ratio¶¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (Abhay J. Mantri, J.; 22.04.2026): Criminal Appeal Nos. 96 and 82 of 2026 allowed; appellants Pallavi Sachin Kanse and Lata Dagdu Gaikwad - permanent residents of the Latur and Dharashiv districts serving with Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Latur - ordered released on bail in Crime No. 4 of 2026 (MIDC Latur Police Station, Dist. Latur) punishable under Sections 107, 108, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, overturning the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur's refusal of 28.01.2026 (Criminal Bail Application Nos. 32 and 39 of 2026). After a hostel inmate hanged herself on 04.01.2026, following a 03.01.2026 incident in which, per the charge-sheet, she had drawn a love sign on the bathroom wall mentioning some girls' names and was punished by Appellant Pallavi, the Court - on perusal of the F.I.R. and witness statements - held prima facie that the appellants neither abetted nor instigated the suicide; an earlier theft episode (26.12.2025) and the victim's mother's own instruction to scold the girl weighed against a torture finding. With the investigation complete and the charge-sheet filed on 24.03.2026 (adding Section 107 BNS), indefinite detention was deemed improper and stringent conditions imposed to dispel prosecution apprehension. Bail on P.B. & S.B. of Rs.1,00,000/- each with one or two solvent sureties, conditioned on: no tampering with prosecution evidence till trial's conclusion, no entry into the JNV Latur hostel premises, and no leaving India without prior Court permission.

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:17774

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 96 OF 2026

Pallavi Sachin Kanse ..APPELLANT VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Another

..RESPONDENTS

AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 2026

Lata Dagdu Gaikwad ..APPELLANT

VERSUS

State of Maharashtra and Another ..RESPONDENTS

Mr. Y.G. Birajdar, Advocate h/f Mr. N.S. Shinde, Advocate for Appellant in AEAL/96/2026

Mr. S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate h/f Mr. G.G. Gabhud, Advocate for Appellant in APEAL/82/2026

Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar, A.P.P. for respondent no.1 - State

Mr. Angad Kanade, Advocate h/f Mr. A.S. Wakode, for Respondent No.2

CORAM : ABHAY J. MANTRI, J. DATE : 22^nd APRIL, 2026

PER COURT :

The Appellants, being dissatisfied with the order dated 28^th January, 2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, in Criminal Bail Application Nos. 32 of 2026 and 39 of 2026, whereby the applications for the grant of bail in connection with Crime No.4 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNS ’) and under Section 3(2) (va)

1 / 6

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC & ST Act ’), was rejected, have filed these Appeals.

Heard learned counsel for both parties. Perused the Appeal memos and annexures with them, as well as a copy of the charge-sheet produced before the Court.

At the outset, it appears that on 04^th January 2026, at around 09:00 a.m., the deceased / victim had committed suicide in the hostel by hanging herself from the ceiling. Therefore, her father/informant lodged the complaint against both the Appellants. Based on said complaint, a crime was registered against the Appellants as stated above.

Pursuant to the registration of crime, both the Appellants were arrested on 06^th January, 2026 . Consequently, they had applied for a grant of regular bail. After considering the material before the Court, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, rejected both the applications. Being dissatisfied with the same, the Appellants have preferred these Appeals.

It is pertinent to note that during the pendency of the Appeals, the investigation into the crime has been completed, and the police have filed the charge sheet before the learned Trial Court on 24^th March 2026 and also added Section 107 of BNS at the time of filing the charge sheet.

2 / 6

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

Learned counsel for the Appellants vehemently contended that there are no specific allegations against them about abetting the deceased / victim to commit suicide. Still, the allegation against Appellant Pallavi is only that she has scolded and beaten the deceased. Similarly, it is alleged that the deceased was being tortured and beaten, and therefore, she has committed suicide.

Learned counsel has taken me through the F.I.R. as well as drawn my attention to Column No.17 of the Post-mortem report and submitted that, except for the injury to the neck, no other injuries were found on the dead body of the deceased, and therefore, submitted that it does not appear that the Appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide. They also submitted that there are no criminal antecedents against the Appellants. They are permanent residents of Latur and Dharashiv districts, respectively. Hence, they urged that both the Appellants be released on bail.

As against this, learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for Respondent No.2 vehemently opposed the Appeals, contending that the offence is a serious one. Learned A.P.P. has taken me through the statement of witness - Ashlesha. He also canvassed that the Appellants have not moved an application for the grant of bail under Section 107 of the BNS and have only applied for the grant of bail under Section 108; therefore, the Appellants are not entitled to be released on bail. However, he fairly admitted that there is

3 / 6

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

no bar to considering the said section while considering the Appeals. He also propounded that if the Appellants are released on bail, then they may tamper with the prosecution evidence by pressurising minor girls by taking undue advantage of their position. Therefore, he urged the dismissal of the Appeals.

Similarly, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 took me through the statement of witness Disha Tiwari and submitted that all these witnesses are the eyewitnesses to the incident dated 03^rd January, 2026. The witnesses have categorically stated that on 03^rd January, 2026, Appellant – Pallavi gave slaps to the victim and also threatened her that if she would commit a similar act in future, then she would issue the Transfer Certificate to her. They also argued that due to the torture and being beaten by Appellant Pallavi, the deceased, under pressure, committed suicide. Therefore, Section 107 of the BNS was added in the crime, wherein punishment of death or imprisonment for life is stipulated. Learned Counsel also showed photographs of the victim committing suicide. Therefore, they urged to dismiss the Appeals.

On perusal of the charge-sheet, prima facie it appears that on 03^rd January, 2026, some incident had occurred, wherein the deceased had admitted that she had drawn a love sign on the wall of the bathroom and mentioned the names of some girls in it and on that ground, Appellant – Pallavi punished her. It is also alleged that she has tortured and beaten the deceased for the said act, and therefore, the deceased has committed suicide.

4 / 6

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

However, on perusal of the F.I.R. as well as the statement of witnesses, prima facie, it does not appear that the Appellants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide or instigated her to do any act/thing. Still, it only shows that the deceased did something wrong. Therefore, she was punished by Appellant Pallavi. So, prima facie, it cannot be said that the victim was tortured and beaten. That does not mean that Appellant – Pallavi has instigated or abated the victim to commit suicide.

Moreover, it appears from the statement dated 28^th January, 2026, of witness Snehal, who in her statement stated that earlier, also on 26^th December, 2025, the victim / deceased had committed theft of some food items. At that time, the Appellant also called her mother, who returned the food items to the respective students. The incident dated 03^rd January, 2026, is the second incident; therefore, the Appellants might have punished her for it. As per the statement of Snehal, it prima facie reveals that the mother of the victim herself instructed the Appellants to scold her if she would commit an act with an intention to harm someone else in future.

Apart from the above, it appears that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court. Besides, both the Appellants are permanent residents of the Latur and Dharashiv districts, respectively, and are serving with Jawahar Navodayz Vidyalaya, Latur. Therefore, in my view, it would not be proper to detain the Appellants behind

5 / 6

910-APEAL-96-26.odt

bars for an indefinite period. However, to dispel the prosecution's apprehension, stringent conditions can be imposed on them while releasing them on bail.

Consequently, both the Criminal Appeals are allowed as prayed .

The Appellants - Pallavi Sachin Kanse and Lata Dagdu Gaikwad are hereby released on bail in connection with Crime No.4 of 2026 registered with MIDC Latur Police Station, Dist. Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 107, 108, 115(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and under Section 3(2) (va) of The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, on furnishing P.B. & S.B. of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with one or two solvent sureties in the like amount on the following conditions:-

(i) The Appellants shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner till the conclusion of the trial.

(ii) The Appellants shall not enter into the hostel premises of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Latur, till the conclusion of the trial.

(iii) The Appellants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court.

Both the Appeals are disposed of.

SSD

6 / 6