Bombay High Court
PRADEEP KESHAV RATHOD AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Disposal
- APPLICATION ALLOWED
- Bench
- SACHIN S DESHMUKH
Holding
The court allowed the bail application, finding insufficient prima facie evidence of instigation and no compelling reason to deny bail.
Summary
The applicants, Pradeep Keshav Rathod and family members, were charged under several sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, in connection with the suicide of Sonali, who alleged severe physical and mental cruelty by her husband and in‑laws. The prosecution alleged that the accused had demanded money and contributed to her death, while the defence argued there was no direct evidence of their participation or instigation. The court noted that the accused had taken the deceased to a hospital rather than concealing the body, and that the charge‑sheet was already filed with the investigation complete. Considering the lack of prima facie proof of abetment, the likelihood of a lengthy trial, and the ability to impose strict bail conditions, the court exercised its discretion in favour of the applicants. Consequently, regular bail was granted on the condition of a personal bond, sureties, and compliance with several procedural safeguards.
Issues considered
- Whether the applicants are entitled to regular bail despite charges of abetment of suicide and other offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the prosecution has established prima facie evidence of the applicants' instigation or participation in the deceased's suicide.
- Whether there is a risk of tampering with evidence or absconding that justifies denial of bail.
- Whether the trial can be concluded within a reasonable period, affecting the bail decision.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 80(2), 85
Subjects
- bail
- abetment of suicide
- domestic violence
- suicide
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- regular bail
- criminal procedure
- evidentiary insufficiency
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:5243
967 BA No.112.2026
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
BAIL APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2026
PRADEEP KESHAV RATHOD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
***
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ravindra B. Ade
APP for Respondents-State : Ms. R. R. Tandale
***
CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
Date : 6th February, 2026
ORDER :-
1. The applicants have approached this Court seeking
regular bail in connection with FIR dated 26.10.2025 bearing Crime
No. 291 of 2025 registered with MIDC Paithan Police Station, Dist.
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences punishable under
Sections 85, 80(2), 108, 115(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
2. The case of the prosecution is that Gayabai Tarachand
Chavan, a 40-year-old sugarcane harvester residing at Dongaon
Tanda No. 2, Paithan, presented complaint against the in-laws of
her deceased daughter Sonali.
967 BA No.112.2026
-2-
3. Sonali married Pradeep Keshav Rathod of Tekdi Tanda
in 2021 and had a 14-month-old daughter named Achal. Following
an initial period of harmony, Sonali was subjected to persistent
physical abuse and verbal insults by her husband, mother-in-law
Tarabai, and father-in-law Keshav Rathod.
4. Prior to the festival Sonali reported violence to her
mother, prompting her brother Arun to bring her back to Dongaon
Tanda for safety. During her stay, Sonali revealed that her
husband, parents-in-law, and several extended family members,
including Vansingh, Vinayak, Antilal, and Shamrao Rathod, as well
as her sisters-in-law Nisha, Diksha, and Usha, frequently tortured
her. They demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for the purchase of a
motorcycle and repeatedly harassed her for want of male child,
threatening to arrange a second marriage for Pradeep to force her
out of the house.
5. Despite these threats Pradeep and Vansingh later took
Sonali back to her marital home, warning her family not to expect
her return. On 25.10.2025, approximately at 11:30 am, Gayabai’s
brother-in-law Vishnu Chavan, reported seeing Pradeep
transporting an unconscious Sonali on a motorcycle. When Gayabai
967 BA No.112.2026
-3-
confronted Pradeep via telephone, he claimed Sonali was ill and
directed the family to Varad Hospital, Bidkin, before abruptly
hanging up.
6. Upon arrival at the hospital, the family found Sonali
abandoned by her in-laws and subsequently pronounced dead by
doctors. Inquiries in Tekdi Tanda revealed that Sonali had
committed suicide by jumping into a well in Gevrai Barshi-Shivar
on 25.10.2025. This act was the direct result of the relentless
physical and mental cruelty inflicted by the aforementioned
accused individuals. Gayabai requests formal action against all
parties involved for their role in her daughter's death.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that the
applicants have been falsely implicated in the offence, emphasizing
the absence of any independent eyewitness to establish their
complicity. The prosecution case regarding the demand for
Rs.1,00,000/- for a motorcycle is vague and lacks specific
corroboration.
8. The learned cousnel further submits that the mere
occurrence of a suicide within the matrimonial home does not
967 BA No.112.2026
-4-
axiomatically attract the ingredients of abetment or cruelty. There
is no evidence of any immediate or provocative act by the
applicants that would constitute "instigation" as defined under the
law. The investigation is complete and the charge-sheet is also
filed. Nothing remains to be recovered at the instance of present
applicants. As such, further incarceration of the applicants is
unjustified. Hence, prayed to allow the application.
9. The learned APP opposed the application, submitting
that the offence is serious in nature and that there is sufficient
material on record to establish the applicant’s complicity. The
learned APP further submits that the deceased Sonali, died within
the four walls of her matrimonial home within only four years of
marriage. The evidence indicates that the harassment was not
limited to financial demands but extended to serious emotional
abuse regarding Sonali’s failure to bear a male child. Furthermore,
the APP argued that if the applicant is released on bail, there is
every possibility of the prosecution evidence being tampered with.
Accordingly, it was prayed that the application be rejected.
10. Upon considering the submissions of both sides and
perusing the material on record, including the charge-sheet, the
967 BA No.112.2026
-5-
primary allegation regarding the demand for Rs. 1,00,000/- for a
motorcycle prima facie appears to be general in nature without
specific dates or instances of such demands being made in the
immediate proximity of the death. First the informant has
implicated ten different family members in the FIR, including
distant relatives and sisters-in-law living elsewhere. Prima facie,
this tendency to involve the entire family of the husband often
necessitates a cautious approach even at the bail stage to ensure
that incarceration does not become a tool for harassment before
the charges are proven.
11. The prosecution's case prima facie indicates that the
applicant Pradeep was seen transporting the deceased to a
hospital. This conduct of taking the deceased to a medical facility,
rather than concealing the body, is a factor that the Court
considers in favor of the applicants' plea that there was no
immediate intent to abscond. The medical reports and the post-
mortem findings indicate death by drowning, which supports the
theory of suicide.
12. The question of whether the applicants’ conduct
amounted to "instigation" under Section 306 of the IPC is a matter
967 BA No.112.2026
-6-
of trial. Furthermore, the co-accused have already been granted
interim protection by this Hon'ble Court in their respective
anticipatory bail applications.
13. The investigation is complete for all intent and purpose
and the charge-sheet is filed. Having regard to the number of
accused and the witnesses which the prosecution proposes to
examine, it is very unlikely that the trial can be commenced and
concluded within a reasonable period.
14. As such, further detention of the applicants as an under
trial prisoner, in the circumstances of the case, does not seem to
be either warranted or justifiable. I am, therefore, persuaded to
exercise the discretion in favour of the applicants. The
apprehension expressed by the learned APP about tampering with
the prosecution evidence can be adequately taken care of by
imposing stringent conditions.
15. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
(I) Application is allowed.
(II) Applicants – Pradeep Keshav Rathod, Keshav
Kalu Rathod and Tarabai Keshav Rathod be
released on regular bail on furnishing P.R. bond of Rs.
967 BA No.112.2026
-7-
50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Only) with one or two local
solvent sureties in the like amount, in Crime No. 291
of 2025 registered with MIDC Paithan Police Station,
Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar for the offences
punishable under Sections 85, 80(2), 108, 115(2),
352, 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, on the following conditions :-
(a) The applicants shall attend each and every date of
the Trial Court unless exempted by the Trial Court.
(b) The applicants shall not pressurize the prosecution
witnesses and shall not tamper with the prosecution
evidence, in any manner.
(c) The applicants shall submit his Aadhar and Pan Card
to the Investigation Officer and detailed addresses
and phone numbers of applicants and two of the near
relatives.
(d) Breach of any of the conditions by the applicants
would entail the cancellation of the bail.
(iii) Needless to states that the observations rendered
herein are to the extent of this application and the
trial court shall not be influenced by the same.
(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
Omkar Joshi
Checking your session…