ABA/779/2026 of MAHESH S/O LAHANUJI DABHADE AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS ARVI TAHSIL ARVI DIST. WARDHA AND ANR on 7 October 2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (ABA) NO.779 OF 2026

MAHESH S/O LAHANUJI DABHADE AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR PSO., PS ARVI, TAHSIL ARVI, DIST. WARDHA AND ANOTHER

Office Notes, Office Memoranda

of Coram, Appearances, Court's

orders or directions and

Registrar's orders

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr. K.J. Topale a/w Mr. R.C. Rathi, Advocate for Applicants.

Ms. S.S. Dhote, APP for Non-Applicant No.1-State.

Ms. Pranjali Mankar, Advocate (Appointed) for Non-Applicant No.2.

CORAM : M.M. NERLIKAR, J.

DATED : 07th OCTOBER 2026

PER COURT :-

1.

Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and learned Counsel for non-applicant No.2 as well as learned APP for the State.

2.

Apprehending arrest, the applicants have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for grant of anticipatory bail, in connection with Crime No.444

of 2026, registered with Police Station Arvi, Dist. Wardha, for the offences punishable under Sections 64(2)(m), 85, 115(2), 351(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the first information report was registered by the informant/victim on 15.07.2026, stating 2026:BHC-NAG:13369

that applicant No.1 is her husband, applicant No.2 is her mother-in- law and applicant No.3 is her father-in-law. It is alleged that, on 15.12.2024 and 28.01.2025, the brother-in-law of the victim committed sexual intercourse with the victim and in spite of disclosure made to the applicants, they did not act upon it. Hence, the FIR.

4.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the FIR

was registered as an afterthought. It is alleged that the incident occurred on 15.12.2024 and 28.01.2025, whereas the FIR was registered on 15.07.2026 i.e. almost after delay of more than one year and six months. He submits that a non-cognizable report was registered by the victim against her husband i.e. applicant No.1 on 12.06.2026. In that N.C. report, the victim has not disclosed that the brother-in-law has committed sexual intercourse with her and that the said fact was disclosed by her to the applicants. He submits that the marriage of the victim with applicant No.1 took place on 27.05.2024.

At the relevant time, the victim and the applicants were residing together, however, the husband of the victim and the victim started residing separately in the month of March 2026 at Nagpur. He submits that this Court has already granted interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 02.09.2026 and accordingly, they have complied with the conditions of the said order. He submits that there is no substance in the allegations made by the victim and therefore,

considering the inordinate delay in registering the FIR, the applicants deserve to be granted anticipatory bail.

5.

On the other hand, learned APP and learned Counsel appearing for the victim vehemently opposed the application and submitted that considering the nature of case and relations between the parties, the victim might not disclose the incident immediately and would want to save her marriage. Under such circumstances, there is nothing to disbelieve the version of the victim and therefore, prayed to reject the application.

6.

Upon consideration of the submissions of both the sides, prima facie, it appears that the marriage between the victim and applicant No.1 took place on 27.05.2024. It further appears that in the month of March 2026, the husband and the victim separated from other family members and started residing at Nagpur. It further appears that on 12.06.2026, there was quarrel between the victim and her husband and accordingly, a non-cognizable report was registered by her against her husband. The FIR was registered on 15.07.2026, alleging that on 15.12.2024 and 28.01.2025, the brother-in-law of the victim committed sexual intercourse with her and in spite of disclosure made to the applicants, they have not acted upon it.

7.

It is to be noted that when the non-cognizable offence was registered on 12.06.2026, nothing was narrated by the victim about the alleged incident that took place in the year 2024-25. It is very difficult to accept the allegations when there is inordinate delay of one year and six months and also on perusal of FIR, it is unclear as to reason that what prompted the informant to register the FIR. It was expected that after 15.12.2024 and 28.01.2025, the victim should have approached the police immediately or after some time.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicants. Since this Court has granted interim protection to the applicants vide order dated 02.09.2026, same is hereby confirmed. Hence, following order is passed.