"Grave & Serious Offences": Bombay High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail To Influential In-Laws In Dowry Harassment Case
Politically influential in-laws not arrested despite FIR, rejection of pre-arrest bail
Justice Madhav J. Jamdar, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has refused anticipatory bail to the father-in-law and mother-in-law of a victim who alleged sustained dowry harassment, physical assault, sexual abuse by her husband, forced miscarriage, and life threats at gunpoint, holding that the accusations disclosed ‘grave and serious offences’ warranting custodial interrogation.
The Court noted that the applicants are highly influential and politically connected with the ruling party in Maharashtra, and despite the FIR and rejection of their anticipatory bail by the Sessions Court, they have not been arrested, which reinforces concerns about their influence over the process.
Consequentially a bench of Justice Madhav J. Jamdar observed, “Thus, this is a case where in spite of facing grave and serious harassment, abuses, assaults and even the burns as also serious threat to the life, the First Informant wanted to save her marriage. The same is a sad reality of Indian Society, where many victims of domestic violence in spite of facing grave threat to their life continue the matrimonial relationship as due to the orthodox atmosphere, they face social stigma if they separate from husband’s family or take divorce. By no stretch of imagination in view of said conduct of the First Informant it can be said that the FIR is false or the same is an exaggerated version”.
Senior Advocates Girish Kulkarni and Rajiv Chavan appeared for the applicants, Advocate R. V. Newton, APP appeared for the respondent.
It was noted that the FIR details repeated demands for gold, cash and valuables, physical and mental cruelty, burn injuries allegedly inflicted by the mother-in-law, and an incident where the father-in-law allegedly threatened the complainant with a pistol, forcing her to lock herself in a room before being rescued by her brother.
As per the facts, investigation records, including photographs and WhatsApp messages shared with family members, prima facie supported the prosecution case and belied the defence claim of a “false and exaggerated FIR”.
Rejecting the argument that the complainant’s willingness to resume matrimonial life weakened the case, the bench observed that victims of domestic violence often attempt to preserve marriage despite abuse due to social pressures, and such conduct cannot be used to discredit allegations.
Holding that the material on record shows prima facie involvement in serious offences and that there exists a real apprehension of witness influence and obstruction of investigation, the Court dismissed the anticipatory bail plea, reiterating that such relief is exceptional and not meant for cases involving grave matrimonial cruelty and dowry-violence.
Cause Title: Anil Kisan Lokhande and Anr v. The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:3919]
Appearances:
Applicants: Girish Kulkarni, Senior Advocate, Amicus Curiae. Rajiv Chavan, Senior Advocate (Through Video Conferencing) a/w Sonam Pandey, Rahul Thakur, Akshay Kumar, Sachin Gade and Asmi Desai, Advocates.
Respondent: R. V. Newton, APP and Surbhi Agrawal, Advocates.