B. R. Gavai & K v. Viswanathan, JJ.) in thecase of Prakash and others vs The State of Maharashtraand another
Case Details
1932IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD932 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2025SHRIKANT @ SHARAD RAMCHANDRA JADHAVVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER…WITH…CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1524 OF 2025INANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.635 OF 2025SUNIL RAJESH KURHADEVERSUSSHRIKANT @ SHARAD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV ANDANOTHER…Advocate for Applicant in ABA : Mr. Rahul R. KarpeAPP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. SonpawaleAdvocate for Assist to PP : Mr. S. R. Andhale...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :29.04.2025P.C. : 1]Criminal Application No.1524 of 2025 standsallowed in terms of prayer clause “A”, which reads as under:“[A]This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to permitthe applicant to assist Public Prosecutor in BailApplication No.635/2025;”2]Heard learned counsel for the applicant, thelearned APP for the respondent-State and the learnedcounsel for the assist to public prosecutor.
Legal Reasoning
29323]The applicant has approached this Courtapprehending arrest in connection with CrimeNo.0069/2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered with KotwaliPolice Station, Ahilyanagar, District Ahilyanagar, for theoffences punishable under Sections 108, 3(5) of theBharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4]The facts in this case are that the applicant hadtaken a tractor of the deceased and advanced him anamount of Rs.30,000/- and he was expecting in return anamount of Rs.50,000/-. It is stated that the deceasedcollected Rs.30,000/- and presented to the applicant,however, the applicant refused to accept Rs.30,000/- andreturned the amount back to the deceased and asked himRs.50,000/- to return the tractor. It is stated that theapplicant has also made statement that if the deceased isnot able to pay back the money then the deceased shouldcommit suicide. It is stated that after the statement wasmade on 04.02.2025, the deceased had committed suicideon 05.02.2025, at about 02:00 p.m. night after about 10 to12 hours.5]The learned counsel for the applicant submitsthat it is a monetary transaction and that the monetarytransaction have been for a short period of time and forsmall amount. The entire incident is stated to be ofFebruary-2025. The learned counsel for the applicant 3932submits that these are business transactions between theparties if at all and, ordinarily, in the business transactionsthe applicant would never expect deceased to commitsuicide rather he would expect his money back.6]The learned counsel for the applicant reliesupon the Division Bench Judgment of the Hon’ble SupremeCourt (Coram: B. R. Gavai & K. V. Viswanathan, JJ.) in thecase of Prakash and others Vs. The State of Maharashtraand another, Criminal Appeal No.__ of 2024 (Arising out ofSLP (Crl.) No.1073 of 2023), dated 20.12.2024.7]Per contra, learned counsel for the assist topublic prosecutor submits that the applicant has demandedhigher payment thereby causing harassment to the deceasedand that the applicant intended the deceased to commitsuicide. He relies upon the Judgment of the Hon’bleSupreme Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2009 (16) SCC 605.8]The learned APP makes similar submissions andrelies upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inthe case of Nipun Aneja and others Vs. State of UttarPradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4091.9]For my convenience, it is better to refer the caseof the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Aneja (supra) as the 4932same can be better applied to the facts of this case. TheHon’ble Supreme Court in Nipun Aneja (supra) hasdiscussed the law on the offence under Section 306 I.P.C.for abetment to commit suicide, as under:“21. The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled ifthe suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct andalarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leavingno option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extremeaction of committing suicide is also on account of greatdisturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceasedsuch incitement can be divided into two broad categories.First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties orphysical relations with the accused and the second categorywould be where the deceased is having relations with theaccused in his or her official capacity. In the case of formercategory sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange ofwords may result into immediate psychological imbalance,consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charmin life and if the person is unable to control sentiments ofexpectations, it may give temptations to the person to commitsuicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife,mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and otherrelations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood ordue to physical relations. In the case of second category thetie is on account of official relations, where the expectationswould be to discharge the obligations as provided for suchduty in law and to receive the considerations as provided inlaw. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tiecannot be equated with the official relationship. The reasonbeing different nature of conduct to maintain thatrelationship. The former category leaves more expectations,whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectationsand obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies andregulations.”10]The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered twocategories, firstly, wherein it has considered the case,where; if the suicide is committed by the deceased due todirect and alarming encouragement / incitement by theaccused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, asthe extreme action of committing suicide is also on account 5932of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of thedeceased. It is stated that such an incitement can be dividedinto two categories that when there is some quarrelbetween the relations like husband and wife, brother andsister, sister and sister, in such relation on account ofsentimental ties it can be stated that the disturbance can begained on account of sentimental ties and, secondly, asregards the official relation one has to see the case indifferent way. The test to be adopted in official relation,whether the parties are in official relation, it is to beidentified on the basis of the material on record, where itindicates prima-facie that the accused intended forabetment to commit suicide.11]In the instant case, the relation of the applicantand the deceased was in nature of monetary transactions /monetary in nature. That, the test to be adopted in theinstant case would be, whether the accused intendedconsequences that in the event the deceased cannot makethe payment the deceased shall commit suicide. Prima-facie, it cannot be said that the accused intended thedeceased to commit suicide. The intended consequence wasthat the applicant should get the money back. But it cannotbe said that the accused / applicant intended the deceasedto commit suicide on account of the official nature oftransaction. The deceased is prima-facie in relation with theapplicant in official capacity / business transactions, which 6932are monetary in nature. Considering the same, thestatement of the accused that the deceased should commitsuicide if cannot give Rs.50,000/-, cannot be equated to anharassment intended to commit suicide. 12]Considering these aspects of the matter andconsidering the case of Nipun Aneja (supra) of the Hon’bleSupreme Court, this court, prima-facie, considers the casefor grant interim protection to the applicant. 13]In the meanwhile, there shall be interim orderin the following terms :- A]Till the next date, in the event the applicant isarrested in connection with Crime No.0069/2025,registered with Kotwali Police Station, Ahilyanagar,District Ahilyanagar, for the offences punishableunder Sections 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya NyayaSanhita, 2023, he shall be released on bail onfurnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/- with one or twosureties in the like amount. B]The applicant shall attend the concerned policestation on 05.05.205 and 06.05.2025, between 10:30a.m. to 01:30 p.m. and, thereafter, as and whenrequired by the investigating officer. C]The applicant shall co-operate with theinvestigation, including producing all documents inhis possession, as may be demanded by theinvestigating officer. 7932D]The applicant shall not influence the informant,witnesses or any person concerned with the case andhe shall not tamper with the evidence. 14]Needless to say, violation of any of the aforesaidconditions may result in this order being cancelled. 15]List on 10.06.2025. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe