BA/984/2026 of DIPAK SHAMRAO DAVULE Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS BORI, NAGPUR (RURAL) on 14 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.984 OF 2026

DIPAK SHAMRAO DAVULE

VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS BORI, NAGPUR (RURAL)

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, Appearances, Court's

orders or directions and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr. J.R. Rathor, Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. H.R. Dhumale, APP for Non-Applicant-State.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATED : 14th OCTOBER 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Since the applicant has appointed Advocate Mr. J.R.

Rathor, the appearance of appointed Advocate Mr. R.K. Tiwari, is hereby discharged.

2.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and learned APP

for the State.

3.

By this application, the applicant is seeking bail in connection with Crime No.581 of 2025, registered with Police Station Bori, Dist. Nagpur Rural, for the offences punishable under Sections 80, 85, 108 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNS”) and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961.

2026:BHC-NAG:13932

4.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the applicant is the father-in-law of deceased Mayuri, who committed suicide on 30.05.2025. The applicant and other co-accused demanded money to the deceased as a dowry and would physically and mentally harassed her for the same. Hence, the FIR.

5.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is the father-in-law of the deceased. He submits that the marriage between the son of the applicant and deceased was solemnized on 25.04.2025, whereas deceased committed suicide on 30.05.2025. He submits that the applicant came to be arrested on 31.05.2025 and on the same day, the FIR was registered alleging that the applicant, being the father-in-law, demanded Rs.2 Lakhs from the father of the deceased as a dowry. He submits that the allegation of harassment and use of filthy language is also levelled against him, however, all these allegations are afterthought. He submits that the marriage took place prior to one month of the incident and therefore, it is very difficult to digest the said allegations. He submits that even if the allegations are taken as it is, the ingredients of Sections 80 and 108 of BNS are not made out. He submits that mere harassment would not be sufficient in order to attract Sections 80 and 108 of BNS

and this cannot be said to an abatement and therefore, according to him, there is no material on record to suggest that the applicant has ever demanded the amount of Rs.2 Lakhs and has ever ill treated the

deceased. He submits that considering the nature of allegations and since the applicant is behind bars from 31.05.2025, the applicant deserves to be granted bail.

6.

On the other hand, learned APP vehemently opposes the application. He invited my attention to various statements including the statement of Sakshi, in front of whom, the demand of money was made. He submits that in the FIR itself, father of the deceased has disclosed all the facts. He submits that there was hardly one month of marriage and in the said period, the deceased committed suicide and therefore, a presumption under Section 80 of BNS would be applicable. He submits that considering the nature of allegations, the applicant does not deserve to be granted bail.

7.

I have considered the submissions of both the sides. It appears that since from three years, the son of the applicant and deceased were having love affair with each other and their marriage is love marriage with the consent of both the family members. The marriage was solemnized on 25.04.2025, whereas the deceased committed suicide by hanging herself at the matrimonial home on 30.05.2025. The first information report was registered on 31.05.2025

and on the same day, the applicant was arrested.

8.

After perusal of the first information report and various statements, though it appears that there are allegations of demand of

dowry of Rs.2 Lakhs, that by itself is not sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 80 of BNS. So far as Section 80 of BNS is concerned, deceased should be subjected to cruelty or harassment before her death. So far as the present case is concerned, it was alleged that on 17.04.2025, at about 01.00 p.m. to 02.00 p.m., it was informed by the deceased that the applicant is demanding Rs.2 Lakhs, however, there is no material in support of the said allegation. Apart from that, after going through the entire material on record, in my opinion, it is very difficult to accept that the ingredients of both the sections i.e. Sections 80 and 108 of BNS, which requires the degree of harassment to attract the said sections, are met in the present case.

9.

Be that as it may, though the above allegations are prima facie in nature, the fact remains that the applicant is behind bars since 31.05.2025 and considering the nature of allegations also, I am of the considered opinion that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of bail. Hence, the following order.