‘Sad reality: Domestic violence victims stay despite threats,’ HC rejects pre-arrest bail to woman’s in-laws linked to ruling party

A single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar on January 21 passed an order on a pre-arrest bail plea by the father-in-law and mother-in-law of the victim booked for offences of cruelty against the daugher-in-law and other provisions under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The daughter-in-law in her complaint claimed that although it was decided that 30 tolas (300 grams) of gold would be given by her family members, at the time of marriage, the applicants demanded 100 tolas (1000 grams) of gold and a Mercedes G-Wagon car as dowry.

Senior advocate Girish Kulkarni, appointed as amicus curiae to represent the applicants’ interests, argued their custody was only sought to record statements to ascertain the veracity of allegations and recover gold, silver ornaments, a pistol, and a Toyota Fortuner car. Kulkarni said the vehicle was with the police and the pistol surrendered, leaving little to recover.

He added that besides vague mentions of 55 tolas gold, 2 kg silver, idols, and gadgets in the FIR, there was no specific classification of ornaments to recover from them. Kulkarni argued that the probe could proceed without custody.

Senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, appearing for the applicants, said the accused had joined the probe, extended their full cooperation and would not abscond and that therefore they should be granted pre-arrest bail.

On the other hand, advocate Surbhi Agrawal, appearing for the complainant daughter-in-law, said she has been staying with her parents and brother (who came to her rescue when the applicants had allegedly locked her in a room) since she was “mercilessly assaulted” in June, 2025. Agrawal said the applicant father-in-law, a director of a sugar factory, was a politician close to the ruling party and Deputy Chief Minister. Agrawal claimed that the applicant had misused a pistol to threaten her and their custodial probe was required.

The court noted that “in spite of facing grave and serious harassment, abuses, assaults and even the burns as also serious threat to the life, the complainant wanted to save her marriage” and the same was the “sad reality of Indian society”. Therefore, the bench added that “by no stretch of imagination” did her conduct suggest a false FIR.

Justice Jamdar also noted that the investigation papers produced by Additional Public Prosecutor R V Newton for Pune Police “clearly show that there is material on record to support the allegations made in the FIR”.

“He (applicant) belongs to Shiv Sena – Eknath Shinde Group and now he is likely to contest the election of the Zilla Parishad from NCP – Ajit Pawar Group. Both these political parties are part of the ruling party in the State of Maharashtra. In any case, the position on record clearly shows that the Applicants are very influential persons,” the court noted.

It added “the position on record shows that they have not been arrested in spite of lodging the FIR and in spite of rejection of their Anticipatory Bail”, therefore no case was made out to grant pre-arrest bail and the plea was rejected.