ASIM DAGADU SHAIKHversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                        33-BA-579-2026.doc


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                   BAIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2026
Asim Dagadu Shaikh                                     … Applicant
     Versus.
The State of Maharashtra And Anr.                    … Respondents
                             -------

Ms. Indrayanee Pandit a/w Satyavrat Joshi and Priyesh More, for
the Applicant.
Mr. Chetan Gogawale, for the Respondent No. 2.
Mr. Ameet Palkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
                                 -------

                                CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
                                 DATE : 7th July, 2026.
P.C. :


1.       Heard, Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, Mr. Chetan Gogawale learned Advocate for the

Respondent No. 2 and Mr. Ameet Palkar, learned APP for the

Respondent – State.



2.       By the present Application, the Applicant seeks Regular Bail

under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,

2023, in connection with Crime No. 289 of 2025 registered at

Parvati Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 108,

Arjun                            1
                                                         33-BA-579-2026.doc


115(2), 351(2) and 351 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



3.      Crime No. 289 of 2025 is now registered as Sessions Case

No. 1169 of 2025 and is pending before the Additional Sessions

Judge, Pune. (Sessions Court).



4.      There are 3 Accused in the present crime. Applicant is

Accused No. 1.



5.      The Applicant was arrested on 13.09.2025 and is in jail as

on date. The Bail Application No. 6358 of 2025 was rejected by the

Sessions Court on 06.12.2025.



6.      Case of the prosecution is that Sajida (deceased), the wife of

the Applicant, committed suicide on account of harassment by the

Applicant and the co-accused.



7.      Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that as per the FIR, the deceased committed suicide on

08.09.2025, following an alleged quarrel with the Applicant 5 days

prior to the incident. She submits that the ingredients required to
Arjun                            2
                                                        33-BA-579-2026.doc


allege an offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya

Sanhita, 2023, are missing from the case. She further submits that

the Applicant has been in jail for almost 10 months.



8.      Mr. Ameet Palkar, learned APP for the Respondent – State,

submits that the deceased committed suicide within 7 years of the

date of marriage and therefore, the presumption under Section

113(A) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would apply.



9.      Mr. Chetan Gogawale, learned Advocate for Respondent No.

2, submits that the deceased was compelled to take such a drastic

step to end her life due to continuous harassment, ill-treatment

and cruelty by the Applicant. He submits that if the Applicant is

released on bail, the Applicant would tamper with evidence and

threaten the witnesses. He submits that if this Court deems it fit to

release the Applicant on bail, one condition this Court should

consider is that the Applicant stay away from the District of Pune

until the examination of the main witnesses (i.e. the deceased's

parents, sister and cousin).



10.     Perused the records with the assistance of the learned

Arjun                          3
                                                                 33-BA-579-2026.doc


Advocates.



11.      As per the allegations in the FIR, the deceased committed

suicide on 08.09.2025, on account of an alleged quarrel that took

place 5 days prior to 08.09.2025. The material on record does not

indicate the presence of any suicide note. Prima facie, suicide by

the deceased on 08.09.2025 is not proximately connected to the

quarrel, which is said to have occurred five days prior. The

material on record does not suggest that the deceased committed

suicide as a direct result of the quarrel that took place five days

prior to 08.09.2025.



12.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay

Singh Sengar v. State of M. P.,1 in paragraph No. 12 have observed

as follows :-


            12.    Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts
            below have erroneously accepted the prosecution story
            that the suicide by the deceased is the direct result of the
            quarrel that had taken place on 25-7-1998 wherein it is
            alleged that the appellant had used abusive language and
            had reportedly told the deceased "to go and die". For this,
            courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan, brother of
            the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when
1   (2002) 5 SCC 371


Arjun                                4
                                                                33-BA-579-2026.doc


           reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house
           of the appellant, told him that the appellant had
           humiliated him and abused him with filthy words. The
           statement of Shashi Bhushan, recorded under Section 161
           CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to this appeal and going
           through the statement, we find that he has not stated that
           the deceased had told him that the appellant had asked
           him "to go and die". Even if we accept the prosecution
           story that the appellant did tell the deceased "to go and
           die", that itself does not constitute the ingredient of
           "instigation". The word "instigate" denotes incitement or
           urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to
           stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea, therefore, is the
           necessary concomitant of instigation. It is common
           knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the
           spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with
           mens rea. It is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the
           alleged abusive words, said to have been told to the
           deceased were on 25-7-1998 ensued by a quarrel. The
           deceased was found hanging on 27-7-1998. Assuming that
           the deceased had taken the abusive language seriously, he
           had enough time in between to think over and reflect and,
           therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language,
           which had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove
           the deceased to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased
           on 27-7-1998 is not proximate to the abusive language
           uttered by the appellant on 25-7-1998. The fact that the
           deceased committed suicide on 27-7-1998 would itself
           clearly point out that it is not the direct result of the
           quarrel taken place on 25-7-1998 when it is alleged that
           the appellant had used the abusive language and also told
           the deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of
           the courts below.



13.     Accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the present crime are granted ad-

interim pre-arrest bail.


Arjun                               5
                                                       33-BA-579-2026.doc


14.      Considering the above-said facts and the pronouncement of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanju Alias Sanjay Singh

Sengar (Supra), which decision is referred to in the subsequent

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Prakash and

Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.2, the continuation of the

Applicant in jail pending the trial in Sessions Case No. 1169 of

2025 is not required.



15.      The apprehension expressed by Mr. Chetan Gogawale,

learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2, can be allayed by

imposing stringent conditions on the Applicant.



16.      Ms. Indrayanee Pandit, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

on instructions from the Applicant, submits that the Applicant shall

not enter the jurisdiction of the District of Pune until the

examination of the three (3) witnesses in Sessions Case No. 1169

of 2025, referred to by Mr. Chetan Gogawale, learned Advocate for

Respondent No. 2. The statement is accepted.




2     2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835


Arjun                           6
                                                           33-BA-579-2026.doc


17.      In view of the above, this Bail Application is allowed on the

following terms :-



        (a)   The Applicant in Crime No. 289 of 2025,

        registered with Parvati Police Station, is directed to be

        released on bail upon furnishing a PR bond in the sum

        of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one

        or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of

        the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case

        No. 1169 of 2025.



        (b)   The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly,

        make any inducement, threat or promise to any person

        acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade that

        person from disclosing the facts to the Court or any

        police officer. Applicant shall not tamper with evidence

        in any manner.



        (c)   The Applicant shall, within (3) days of his release

        from jail, provide the Investigating Officer at Parvati

        Police Station, with his residential address and proof

Arjun                              7
                                                         33-BA-579-2026.doc


        thereof, his contact number and must inform the

        Investigating Officer at Parvati Police Station, of any

        changes to this information from time to time.



        (d)   The Applicant shall regularly appear before the

        Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.

        1169 of 2025, whenever the matter is fixed, unless

        specifically exempted.



        (e)   The Applicant shall not enter the territorial

        jurisdiction of the District of Pune till the above-

        referred three (3) Witnesses are examined in Sessions

        Case No. 1169 of 2025, save and except for attending

        and appearing before the Sessions Court as and when

        the date is fixed.



        (f)   The Applicant shall regularly appear before the

        Sessions Court unless specifically exempted.



18.      Observations in this order are prima facie and limited to

deciding the bail application and will not be treated as a finding on

Arjun                             8
                                                                               33-BA-579-2026.doc


                      merits.



                      19.     Criminal Bail Application No. 579 of 2026 is disposed of.



                                                                  (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




ARJUN
KRISHNA
RODGE
Digitally signed by
ARJUN KRISHNA
RODGE
Date: 2026.07.07
21:17:35 +0530




                      Arjun                            9