Bombay High Court
BABASAHEB NAGNATH SALGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- NITIN B SURYAWANSHI
Holding
The court confirmed anticipatory bail, holding that custodial interrogation was unnecessary and the interim protection stands.
Summary
The petitioners, Babasaheb Nagnath Salgar and others, sought anticipatory bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged dowry-related harassment leading to the suicide of their daughter-in-law, Shweta. The FIR, lodged four days after the death, alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The court noted that maternal relatives present at the inquest did not raise any grievance, and the husband of the deceased was already in custody. It held that custodial interrogation of the petitioners was unnecessary and that they had cooperated with the investigation. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim protection previously granted, effectively granting anticipatory bail.
Issues considered
- Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners despite the FIR and charge‑sheet for alleged dowry‑related offences.
- Whether custodial interrogation of the petitioners is necessary in view of the husband’s custody and their cooperation.
- Whether the interim protection previously ordered should be confirmed.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 3(5), 80, 85
- Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- anticipatory bail
- dowry death
- suicide
- custodial interrogation
- interim protection
- legal aid
Judgment
1 32-ABA-21-26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLN. NO. 21 OF 2026
BABASAHEB NAGNATH SALGAR AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Mr. Jaydeep D Mane, , , Advocate for Petitioner
Smt. P. S. Rane, APP for the Respondent-State
Mr. Dattatraya G. Patil, Advocate for Intervenor
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
PER COURT :
1. Applicants apprehend arrest in C.R. No.1252/2025,
registered with Mohol Police Station, Solapur Rural for offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 3(5), 80 and 85 of the Bharatiya
Nyay Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act, 1961.
2. Deceased Shweta was daughter-in-law of applicant
Nos.1 and 2. Mother of the deceased Shweta lodged FIR alleging
that because of the ill-treatment at the hands of the in-laws
including applicants and due to their insistence to bring Rs.10 Lakh
for purchasing JCB machine, Shweta has committed suicide by
hanging on 01/12/2025.
SVH
2 32-ABA-21-26.odt
3. Heard learned advocate for applicants, learned APP for
respondent / State and learned advocate for intervenor informant.
Perused the record.
4. Charge-sheet in the present crime is filed on
31/01/2026. Admittedly, there is delay of 4 days in lodging the FIR.
Learned advocate for applicants submits that when A.D. was
registered, there was no complaint on the part of maternal relatives
of the deceased about alleged ill-treatment. Learned APP on
instructions from the investigating officer present in the Court,
submits that their statements are not recorded.
5. Fact remains that, at the time of inquest panchanama
and spot panchanama the maternal relatives of the deceased were
present, however, they did not raise any grievance about the
alleged ill-treatment meted out to the deceased.
6. Husband of the deceased is already arrested and he is
in custody. In view of filing of the charge-sheet custodial
interrogation of the applicants is not necessary. Applicants were
granted interim protection and they have cooperated in the
investigation.
7. In the light of the above, the application is allowed by
confirming the interim protection granted to the applicants vide
order dated 13/01/2026.
SVH
3 32-ABA-21-26.odt
8. Fees of the learned advocate appointed to represent the
informant be paid by the Legal Aid as per the schedule, as
expeditiously as possible.
(NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…