The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling by rejecting anticipatory bail applications for a father-in-law and mother-in-law, who are allegedly connected to a ruling political party in Maharashtra. The couple faces serious charges of cruelty, assault, and issuing life threats against their daughter-in-law, as booked by the Pune police.
Court Highlights Influence and Societal Realities
In a detailed order passed on January 21, 2026, a single-judge bench of Justice Madhav J Jamdar observed that the applicants are "very influential persons" with ties to the ruling party. The court emphasized that no case was made out for granting pre-arrest bail, particularly noting their political connections and the gravity of the allegations.
Victim's Plight and Societal Stigma
The court expressed deep concern over the "sad reality of Indian society," where many victims of domestic violence continue to endure grave threats to their lives within matrimonial relationships. Justice Jamdar pointed out that victims often face social stigma in an orthodox atmosphere if they separate from their husband's family or seek divorce, which compels them to stay despite severe harassment.
The bench noted that the complainant, in this case, had wanted to save her marriage despite facing assaults, burns, and life threats. This conduct, the court stated, by no stretch of imagination suggests a false FIR, reinforcing the credibility of her allegations.
Allegations and Legal Proceedings
The daughter-in-law's complaint detailed shocking demands, including 100 tolas (1000 grams) of gold and a Mercedes G-Wagon car as dowry, far exceeding the initially agreed 30 tolas. She accused her in-laws of cruelty and assault, with incidents dating back to June 2025, after which she has been staying with her parents and brother for safety.
Arguments from Both Sides
Senior advocate Rajiv Chavan, representing the applicants, argued that the accused had fully cooperated with the investigation, joined the probe, and would not abscond, thus meriting pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, advocate Surbhi Agrawal, appearing for the complainant, highlighted the father-in-law's political influence as a director of a sugar factory and his closeness to the Deputy Chief Minister, alleging misuse of a pistol to threaten the victim.
Senior advocate Girish Kulkarni, appointed as amicus curiae, contended that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as most items, including a pistol and a Toyota Fortuner car, were already with the police, and the FIR lacked specific details on recoverable ornaments.
Court's Firm Stance on Influence and Justice
The court took note of the investigation papers presented by Additional Public Prosecutor R V Newton, which provided material evidence supporting the FIR's allegations. It also underscored the applicants' political affiliations, noting the father-in-law's links to the Shiv Sena – Eknath Shinde Group and potential candidacy from the NCP – Ajit Pawar Group, both part of Maharashtra's ruling coalition.
Justice Jamdar remarked that the applicants had not been arrested despite the FIR and previous bail rejections, indicating their influential status. The bench firmly concluded that granting pre-arrest bail was unjustified, thereby rejecting the plea and upholding the need for a thorough custodial probe to ensure justice in this high-profile domestic violence case.
