Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

YOGESH KANUBHAI DARJIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided
Disposal
ANTICIPATORY BAIL GRANTED

Holding

The Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, holding that custodial interrogation is not warranted and the applicant's personal liberty must be protected.

Summary

The applicant, Yogesh Kanubhai Darji, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, after an FIR was lodged by his wife alleging dowry demand and cruelty dating back to 2010. The FIR was filed six years after the alleged incidents, while a divorce petition filed in 2020 remains pending, suggesting the allegations arise from a matrimonial dispute. The State opposed bail, citing the seriousness of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The Court observed the substantial delay and the context of marital discord, concluding that custodial interrogation was not warranted and that the applicant's personal liberty should be protected. Consequently, the Court granted anticipatory bail, imposing a bond of Rs. 25,000 with a surety and directing the applicant to cooperate with the investigation.

Issues considered

  • Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the applicant given the delay in filing the FIR and the matrimonial dispute background.
  • Whether the nature of the offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act and the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita warrants custodial interrogation.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • anticipatory bail
  • dowry prohibition
  • marital dispute
  • delay in FIR
  • personal liberty
  • Section 482
  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
  • criminal procedure

Judgment

                                                   5-ABA-2630-2026.ODT




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
               CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2630 OF 2026
Yogesh Kanubhai Darji                                …Applicant
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra                             …Respondent


Adv. Vivek N. Arote a/w Adv. Akshay Dingale and Adv. Harish
Garde, for Applicant.

Mrs. Megha S. Bajoria, A.P. P., for Respondent – State.

PSI Shruti Malpote and APP Smt. Bhajoria, Dahisar Police Station,
Mumbai, are present.


                      CORAM :          PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                      DATE        :    22ND SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C:-

1.        Heard learned counsel for applicant as well as learned

APP for respondent – State.

2.         The applicant has filed the instant application under

Section 482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No. 600 of

2026 dated 24.04.2026, registered with Dahisar Police Station,

Brihanmumbai, for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and

4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(5), 85,

115(2), 316(2) and 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



                                  Page 1 of 5
                             nd
                          22 September 2026
                                                5-ABA-2630-2026.ODT




3.     The FIR is registered on the basis of a report lodged by

the complainant/wife of the applicant alleging that from 29th

March 2010 till date the husband (this applicant) and the

father-in-law and mother-in-law have acted in collusion and

committed certain acts of cruelty upon her on account of

demanding dowry. She has also alleged that her Stridhana

articles are not returned by them. On the basis of these

allegations, the offence came to be registered against three

persons including this applicant and his parents.

4.      Learned counsel for applicant submits that the FIR is

registered by the complainant in the background of the

matrimonial dispute between husband and wife and the

allegations about cruelty from March 2010 are without any

substantial basis. He submits that the complainant/wife has

already filed a divorce petition in the year 2020 and the same is

pending. As such, in the background of this matrimonial dispute

the allegations of cruelty do not show commission of any

offence. He submits that there is a delay of about six years in

lodging the report and the allegations are leveled for causing

harassment to the applicant and his aged parents. He submits



                               Page 2 of 5
                          nd
                        22 September 2026
                                                 5-ABA-2630-2026.ODT




considering the nature of the offence, the custody of this

applicant is not warranted.

5.         Learned APP for the respondent – State opposed the

application and submitted that there are allegations in the FIR

about demand of dowry by the applicant and other accused

persons. It is also submitted that the Sessions Court has taken

note of the conduct of the applicant in not disclosing the

criminal antecedents and hence the application is disposed and

therefore, the instant application be also rejected.

6.            Perused the FIR and the documents on record. It has

to be noted that the FIR is registered by the wife in the

background of matrimonial dispute in between the applicant

and the complainant. It has also to be noted that in the year

2020, the divorce petition is filed and the allegations of cruelty

if any, are with respect to the period when they were living

together. Thus, it is clear that there is substantial delay in

lodging the FIR and it prima facie appears that the offence is

registered to cause harassment to the applicant and his aged

parents.

7.     At this stage, considering the nature of offence, custodial

interrogation of this applicant is not warranted and the presence

                                 Page 3 of 5
                            nd
                          22 September 2026
                                                     5-ABA-2630-2026.ODT




of this applicant can be secured by directing him to attend the

Police Station. Having regard to all above aspects, the personal

liberty of the applicant needs to be protected.

8.    Hence, I pass following order :-


                                    ORDER

       (i)    The Anticipatory Bail Application is allowed.

       (ii)   In the event of arrest of this applicant in
              connection with Crime No. 600 of 2026,
              registered    with        Dahisar   Police   Station,
              Brihanmumbai, for the offence punishable
              under Sections 3, 4 of The Dowry Prohibition
              Act, 1961 and Sections 3(5), 85, 115(2),
              316(2) and 352 of The Bharatiya Nyaya
              Sanhita, 2023, he be released on bail on
              furnishing P. R. Bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees
              Twenty Five Thousand only) with one solvent
              surety of the like amount.

       (iii) The applicant is directed to attend the Police
              Station on 28th September 2026 in between
              10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and thereafter as and
              when called upon by the investigating agency.

       (iv) The applicant is directed to extend co-
              operation during investigation and trial.



                                  Page 4 of 5
                             nd
                           22 September 2026
                                                       5-ABA-2630-2026.ODT




             (v)   Breach of any of these conditions, shall be a
                   ground for cancellation of the bail.


9.          Anticipatory Bail Application is disposed of in above

terms.




                                           (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)
VDMokal/-




                                     Page 5 of 5
                                nd
                              22 September 2026


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.