BIPIN JOGINDAR MAURYAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

SA_MANDAWGAD                                              902 BA 2480-26.DOC


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 2480 OF 2026

Bipin Jogindar Maurya                                 … Applicant
      V/S.
State of Maharashtra                                  … Respondent


Mr. Vinod V. Kashid i/by Mr. Manoj Kumar Tiwari, for Applicant.
Ms. H.T. Hiwrale, APP for Respondent–State.
Mr. Ramesh Waghchaure, API, Pelhar Police Station, present.


                            CORAM:        SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.
                            DATED :       29th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :-

1.        Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

2.        Present application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”), seeking release of the
applicant on bail in connection with Cr.No. 165 of 2026 registered
with Pelhar Police Station, Vasai, for the offence punishable under
Sections 80, 85, 351(2), 352 read with 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 (“BNS”), on the report dated 14 th March, 2026
lodged by Manikchand Jaganath Maurya. There are total seven
accused in the crime.

3.        The prosecution case is that the deceased Kajal was
daughter of the informant. The deceased was married to Vikas
Maurya (A1) on 2nd March, 2025. The applicant is the brother of
A1. After the marriage, the deceased used to reside jointly with her
husband, applicant and their parents. On 7th January, 2026, the
deceased visited the informant and stayed there till “Holi’ festival.
On 6th March, 2026 she went to her matrimonial house.

                                 Page 1 of 4
SA_MANDAWGAD                                            902 BA 2480-26.DOC



      As the prosecution story goes further, on 13 th March, 2026,
the deceased phoned her aunt and complained that since she had
resumed her matrimonial house on 6th March, 2026, no one from
her in-laws’ side was properly talking with her; they continuously
told her to work and assaulted her. On 13 th March 2026, the
deceased committed suicide by hanging. In the Report it is alleged
that all the seven accused used to abuse and assault the deceased
for dowry. Consequently the deceased committed suicide.
Therefore, the aforesaid crime came to be registered and the
Accused persons, including the applicant, were arrested. During
investigation police recorded the statement of witnesses. On
completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet.
The trial Court has declined to release the applicant on bail.

4.    Mr. Kashid, learned counsel for the applicant, has submitted
that, absolutely, there is no evidence against the applicant of
causing cruelty to the deceased nor about the demand of dowry by
him coercing the deceased to meet the demand of dowry. All the
allegations in that regard are vague and baseless. Therefore, the
applicant may be released on bail.

5.    Ms. Hiwrale, learned APP, on the other hand, has submitted
that there is ample evidence against the applicant and co-accused
that they all in furtherance of their common intention assaulted
the deceased to force her to fulfill their unlawful demand of dowry.
She submitted that the accused persons mentally harassed the
deceased by telling her to do the household work. Therefore, the
applicant is not entitled to bail.

6.    I have considered these submissions. Renudevi is the aunt
of the deceased. In her statement, Renudevi has stated that when

                               Page 2 of 4
SA_MANDAWGAD                                            902 BA 2480-26.DOC



the deceased had visited her parental house, she had complained
that the accused persons used to harass her on account of not
giving money and ornaments in the marriage. It is stated that the
deceased used to call Renudevi at an intervals of 2 to 3 days and
complained the same. However, the aforesaid facts are not stated
in the Report by the informant. There is no mention about the
alleged demand of dowry or the cruelty caused between 2 nd March
2025 till 6th March 2026 when the deceased last returned to her
matrimonial home accompanied with the applicant.

7.    In view of the above discussion, in my opinion, there is no
prima facie case against the applicant of having committed the
alleged offence. The investigation is over. Further detention of the
applicant in jail will not serve any purpose. The trial will take its
own time. The applicant is not likely to abscond and tamper with
the prosecution evidence.

8.    As a result, the applicant is entitled for bail. Hence,
following Order :-

       (i)     Applicant - Bipin Jogindar Maurya be released on bail
       in aforesaid FIR registered with Pelhar Police Station,
       Vasai, on his executing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-
       with one or two sureties in the like amount.

       (ii)    The applicant shall mark his attendance at once in
       each calender month between 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. till
       conclusion of the trial.




                                  Page 3 of 4
                 SA_MANDAWGAD                                                902 BA 2480-26.DOC



                        (iii) The applicant shall regularly attend the proceedings
                        before the jurisdictional Court unless exempted by the said
                        Court, for the reasons to be recorded in writing.

                        (iv)    The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution
                        evidence and shall not directly or indirectly influence upon
                        the prosecution witnesses to prevent them from deposing
                        against him.

                        (v)     On being released from jail, the applicant shall
                        furnish his contact number and residential address to the
                        Investigating Officer and shall keep him updated, in case
                        there is any change.

                        (vi)    It is clarified that any observation made in the present
                        Order are for the purpose of deciding the present Bail
                        application and should not influence the outcome of the
                        trial and also not be taken as an expression of opinion on
                        the merits of the case.


                 9.    Application stands disposed of in aforesaid terms.



                                                                (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)




          Digitally
          signed by
          SANJAY
SANJAY    ASARAM
ASARAM    MANDAWGAD
MANDAWGAD Date:
          2026.10.01
          10:52:01
          +0530
                                                  Page 4 of 4