Bombay High Court

GANESH ARUN DEVKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that no case for indulgence existed and dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Ganesh Arun Devkar, filed an anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, fearing arrest in a case of alleged abetment of suicide and offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. He claimed he was transferred to Baramati and was not residing with his deceased wife at the time of her suicide, asserting the FIR was vague and did not disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences. The State argued that the applicant was present at the scene, attempted a false alibi, and was absconding, relying on a witness statement by Dr. Yogesh Kurade. The court examined the transfer order, the applicant’s claim of residence, and the witness statement, finding the applicant’s conduct suspicious and the FIR sufficient to warrant investigation. Concluding that no case for indulgence existed, the court dismissed the anticipatory bail application.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail can be granted under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 in view of the allegations of abetment of suicide.
Whether the FIR discloses the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
Whether the applicant's claim of residence in Baramati is credible and sufficient to negate his alleged involvement.
Whether the applicant's conduct justifies custodial interrogation and denial of bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 3(5)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
Section 482
abettor of suicide
false alibi
transfer order
custodial interrogation
bail denial

Judgment

24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV RAMESH
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
RAMESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.17
10:32:31
+0530

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 512 OF 2026

Ganesh Arun Devkar … Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

-------
Mr. Rishikesh Mohite for the Applicant.
Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, APP for the State.
Mr. Dilip Dhere, Karmala Police Station, Solapur Rural is
present.
-------

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
P.C.:-

1. Heard, Mr. Rishikesh Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant

and Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP for the State.

2. By this Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail,

apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 621 of 2026

registered at Karmala Police Station, Solapur Rural, for offences

punishable under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”).

VRJ 1
24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

3. Mr. Rishikesh Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that there are two (2) accused in Crime No. 621 of 2026. The

Applicant is arraigned as Accused No. 1 and Shalan Arun Devkar as

Accused No. 2.

4. Mr. Rishikesh Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that the relationship between the Applicant (husband) and the

deceased (wife) was strained. He, by referring to the document at page

26 of the paper-book, i.e. the Transfer Order bearing No. 63668 dated

16th June 2026, points out serial No. 3 and submits that the Applicant

was transferred to Baramati and was not residing with the deceased. He

submits that the allegations in the FIR are vague and omnibus. He

submits that the FIR does not make out the ingredients required to

constitute an offence under Section 108 of the BNS, 2023. He submits

that the FIR makes reference to the incident of 2014 and thereafter to

the incident of 2026.

5. Mr. Rishikesh Mohite, learned Advocate for the Applicant, refers

to Exhibit ‘D’ (page Nos. 28 to 33) to submit that those are messages

between the deceased and her friend with whom she had an illicit

relationship. He submits that upon the deceased's brother learning of

the said affair between the deceased and the third person, the deceased,

fearing disclosure of the same to the Applicant, committed suicide.

VRJ 2
24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

6. Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP for the State, submits that

the Applicant was residing with the deceased on the date of the

incident, that is, 2nd July 2026. He submits that the Applicant has

attempted to take a false plea of alibi in the present case, that is, to

portray that the Applicant was not residing with the deceased on the

date the suicide was committed.

7. Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP for the State, by referring to

and relying on the investigation papers, more particularly the statement

of a witness, that is Dr. Yogesh Madhukar Kurade, submits that the

Applicant made an attempt to cover up the suicide by informing the

doctor that the deceased required urgent medical aid. He points out to a

statement of the doctor which reads as follows:

" … ि .०२/०७/२०२६ रोजी मी माझे हॉ्पीटलम्ये ि यिमत कामकाज करीत

असता ा ु पारी १२/३० वा. चे सु मारास माझे हॉ्पीटल जवळ राहणे स असले ले

माझे ओळखीचे गणे श उफ) ा ा े वकर यांचा मला फो आला व ्यां ी मला फो वर

सां िगतले की, ्याची प् ी ्योती िह े काहीतरी केले आहे . तु ्ही लवकर माझे घरी

या असे सां िगतले . ्यावे ळी मी ्यास ये तो असे ्हणालो . ्या ं तर मी गणे श े वकर

यांचे घरी जा्यासाठी ि घणार ते वढयात गणे श माझे हॉ्पीटलम्ये आला व

्हणाला की, ‘ चला चला लवकर घरी चला ्योतीची त्ये त खु प ि घडली आहे .

तु ्ही माझे सो त चला.’ असे ्हणाला. ्यावे ळी मी ्याचे सोबत ्याचे

मोटारसायकलवु तो भाडया े राहत असले ्या सोमे ्वर कुरडे यांचे घराचे वर्या

VRJ 3
24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

मज्यावर असले ्या बे डुम्ये गे लो. ्यावे ळी गणे श याची प् ी ्योती ही बे डवर

ि पिचत अव्थे त पडले ली होती. ्यावे ळी ्योती िहची सासु शाल ते थे उभी

होती. बे डुमधील फॅ ला साडी लटकत असले ली ि सत होती. मी ्योती िहची

ाडी तपासु ितची प्राथिमक तपासणी केली असता ती सु मारे १० ते १०

िमि टापु वी )च मयत झाली अस्याचे माझे लषात आ्या े मी गणे श यास ्याची

प् ी ्योती ही मयत झाली अस्याचे सां िगतले . ...”

8. Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP for the State, submits that

the Applicant is absconding. He further submits that the Applicant's

conduct indicates the Applicant’s involvement in the crime and his

attempt to conceal facts, therefore, custodial interrogation is required

for a thorough and proper investigation.

9. Perused the records with the assistance of the learned Advocates.

10. Though the Applicant had attempted and in fact, strongly urged

that the Applicant was not residing with the deceased during the period

when the deceased committed suicide, relying on the document

(Transfer Order bearing Nos. 63668 dated 16 th June 2026), the cause

title of this Application gives a different impression regarding the

Applicant's residential address. The Applicant's address is the precise

address where the deceased was found hanging. Applicant has not

produced any document to indicate the place or address where the

Applicant was residing in Baramati, as claimed. Mr. Rishikesh Mohite,

VRJ 4
24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

learned Advocate for the Applicant, attempted to contend that the

Applicant's permanent address is as mentioned in the cause title.

11. Ground ‘C’ in the Application indicates that the Applicant intends

to represent that the Applicant was not residing at the address where

the deceased committed suicide and that the Applicant was staying at a

place in Baramati in view of the transfer. Ground ‘C’ reads as follows:

“C. It is very important to note the fact that the present applicant is
husband of the deceased and she was not residing with the deceased and
accused no. 1 as applicant was residing at Pimpalner at Baramati for work
purpose which can be seen transfer order of the applicant so if the present
applicant was not residing with the deceased her role in instigating and
abetment is totally absent Hereto annexed and marked as Exhibit "C" is a copy
of the transfer orders of accused no.1 to Baramati”

12. The statement of the witness, Dr. Yogesh Kurade, relied upon by

Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP, prima facie, indicates that the

Applicant was present when the deceased committed suicide. The

conduct of the Applicant prima facie does not inspire confidence. Mr.

Shriram Chaudhari, learned APP, would be justified in his submission

that the Applicant attempted to portray a different picture of the

incident, to put it in the words of Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, a cover-up.

13. Considering the aforesaid, the nature of allegations against the

Applicant in the FIR, the attempt made by the Applicant to suggest he

was not present on the day of the incident, the Applicant keeping

VRJ 5
24 - ABA - 512 - 2026.doc

himself away from the investigation, the statement of Dr. Yogesh Kurade

and the circumstances as submitted by Mr. Shriram Chaudhari, learned

APP, which indicate a case for thorough investigation against the

Applicant. No case made out for indulgence.

14. In view of the above, Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.

512 of 2026 is dismissed.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

VRJ 6

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…