Bombay High Court

PRIYANKA SANDEEP RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: R M JOSHI

Holding

The court held that, given the possibility of false implication, lack of criminal history and the hearsay nature of the statements, anticipatory bail should be granted with conditions.

Summary

Priyanka Sandeep Rathod applied for anticipatory bail after being charged under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for allegedly pushing her husband from a balcony. The husband alleged she attempted to kill him, while the applicant claimed he was drunk, jumped on his own, and that she had called the police and filed a non‑cognizable complaint. The prosecution relied on witness statements, but the court noted these were hearsay and that an independent police constable’s report suggested the husband may have fallen voluntarily. Considering the delay in filing the FIR, the domestic dispute, and the applicant’s clean record, the court found a likelihood of false implication. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail on a personal bond of Rs. 15,000 with standard conditions, including cooperation with the investigation and no contact with witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the accused under Section 109(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the material on record, including hearsay statements, is sufficient to justify arrest.
Whether the circumstances indicate a possibility of false implication arising from a domestic dispute.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1)

Subjects

anticipatory bail
attempt to murder
Section 109
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
false implication
domestic dispute
bail conditions

Judgment

                                 -1-
                                                       aba983.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

     936 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 983 OF 2026

Priyanka Sandeep Rathod                         ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                        …..Respondent

Mr. R. K. Jadhavar, Advocate for Applicant
Mr. S. G. Joshi, APP for the State.

                              CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                              DATE : 2nd JULY, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

203/2026 registered with Pundalik Nagar Police Station, District

Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offence punishable under Section

109(1) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



2.    First informant is the husband of the Applicant, who claims

that in the intervening night of 09.05.2026 and 10.05.2026, quarrel

had occurred between them and in order to kill him, the Applicant

pushed him from the balcony of second floor.       He fell down and

sustained fracture injuries to his ribs. On the basis of this, offence

came to be registered against the Applicant.
                                  -2-
                                                         aba983.26.odt

3.    Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that infact at the

time of occurrence of the quarrel, the Applicant had called police to

the spot and police personnel came to the spot to verify the fact with

regard to the informant himself having jumped from the second floor

of the house. Apart from this, it is his submission that the Applicant

has lodged NC against the husband in respect of the said incident.

He further argues that there is delay in lodging of the report and

considering the same, possibility of false implication is not ruled out.



4.    Learned APP opposed the application. It is his submission that

the statements of witnesses indicate that the Applicant has pushed

her husband from the second floor of the house, which is sufficient to

show her intention to kill him.



5.    At the outset, it needs to be recorded that the statements

recorded during the course of investigation are hearsay     in   nature.

The only statement of police constable who responded to the call of

the Applicant, indicates that he made enquiry about the incident and

from the information given not only by the Applicant but also by the

neighbours, he came to know that the informant was drunk and he

jumped from the second floor.      The said statement of independent
                                      -3-
                                                           aba983.26.odt

witness is sufficient to hold that there is possibility of false

implication of the Applicant in the crime. Applicant has no criminal

history behind her. Considering the possibility of false implication

owing to the dispute between the husband and wife, liberty of the

Applicant deserves to be protected. Hence,the following order :-



                                     ORDER



        (i)     In the event of arrest of applicant Priyanka
        Sandeep       Rathod,   in    connection   with Crime    No.
        203/2026       registered    with   Pundalik   Nagar   Police
        Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the
        offence punishable under Section 109(1) of Bharatiya
        Nyaya Sanhita, she be released on bail on furnishing
        PR Bond of Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen Thousand only)
        with one surety in the like amount.


        (ii)    She shall attend the concerned police station as
        and when called by the concerned Investigating Officer.


        (iii)   She shall not contact the witnesses directly or
        indirectly.


        (iv)    She shall not interfere with the evidence in any
        manner whatsoever.
                               -4-
                                                        aba983.26.odt

      (v)     She    is   further directed to cooperate the
      investigating agency for further investigation.


      (vi)   Learned APP to communicate this order to the
      concerned Investigating Officer.



                                               ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…