High Court · 2025
Facts
1936.25BAIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD952 BAIL APPLICATION NO. 936 OF 2025PRADEEP SAMBHAJI TARKEVERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for the applicant : Mr.A.D.Hande APP for Respondent-State : Mr.V.N.Patil-Jadhav …CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :12.06.2025P.C. : 1]Heard learned counsel for the applicant and thelearned APP for the respondent-State. 2]The applicant is seeking bail as he is arrested on18.01.2025 in connection with Crime No. 204/2024,registered with Sonkhed Police Station for the offencespunishable under Section 108, 352, 351 (2), 351 (3), 3 (5)of the B.N.S. 2023. 3]The FIR is lodged by Chandrakant Sanjay Kaleon 08.11.2024 alleging that his brother Saheb Kale hadtaken a hand loan of Rs.5000/- for household expensesfrom the accused Pradip Tarke and that after 15 days, thepresent applicant Pradip Tarke has taken Rs.2000/- from 2936.25BAthe deceased and thereafter the present applicant hasdemanded further amount from him on high interest.Thereafter, on 07.11.2024, when the deceased was goingon motorcycle, three people Pradip Tarke, BhagwanKhansole and Sachin More met him and demanded the saidmoney from him and they beat him. At that time, thedeceased called his brother and then Sachin More told himthat they should resolve their dispute and then his brotherSaheb told him to wait up to first of the next month. At thattime, they forced him to give the money and had beatenhim with slaps, fists and also threatened them. On beingrescued from that place thereafter they parted company. Onthe very same day at night, Saheb Kale committed suicideand was found on the lim tree. As such, the FIR is registeredagainst the present applicant. 4]Thereafter, the applicant has filed BailApplication before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandharand the same was rejected on 21.04.2025 on the groundthat there is possibility of the offence under Section 302 ofthe IPC. However, the investigation is complete in thematter. Now the charge sheet is filed. The statement ofSachin More is recorded on 09.11.2024 wherein he statedthat he is witnessed of the fight between the accused andSahebrao Kale and Chandrakant Kale and the accusedpersons have assaulted them by fist and blows by sayingthat they will kill them and thereafter they had left. As such,
Legal Reasoning
3936.25BAthere is no possibility of the accused hanging the deceased.There is no further evidence collected by the prosecutionindicating that the deceased was hanged by any otherperson. The prosecution has thus filed the charge sheetunder Section 306 of the IPC only. 5]The victim has taken hand loan from theapplicant of Rs.5000/- and the applicant has insisted forpayment of Rs.5000/- on high interest. Considering thisaspect and considering the allegations made in thecomplaint, prima facie it cannot be said that the applicanthas instigated or driven the deceased to commit suicide.The Law of applicability of Section 306 of the Indian PenalCode is discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court inMahendra Awase v. The State of Madhya Pradesh (CriminalAppeal No. 221 of 2025, decided on 17/01/2025), referredto paragraph 12 of its earlier judgment in Amalendu Palalias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707,which states as under : -“12.Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view thatbefore holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts andcircumstances of the case and also assess the evidenceadduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty andharassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with noother alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to beborne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicidethere must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement tothe commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of 4936.25BAharassment without there being any positive action proximateto the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which ledor compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction interms of Section 306 of IPC is not sustainable.”6]In paragraph No.16 of the Judgment in case ofMahendra Awase (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court hasobserved as under : -“16.In order to bring a case within the purview of Section306 IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commissionof the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted thecommission of suicide must have played an active role by anact of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate thecommission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by theperson charged with the said offence must be proved andestablished by the prosecution before he could be convictedunder Section 306 IPC.”7]In the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State ofChhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, the Hon’ble SupremeCourt observed as follows : -“Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,incite or encourage to do 'an act'. To satisfy therequirement of instigation though it is notnecessary that actual words must be used to thateffect or what constitutes instigation mustnecessarily and specifically be suggestive of theconsequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incitethe consequence must be capable of being speltout. The present one is not a case where theaccused had by his acts or omission or by a 5936.25BAcontinued course of conduct created suchcircumstances that the deceased was left with noother option except to commit suicide in whichcase an instigation may have been inferred. Aword uttered in the fit of anger or emotion withoutintending the consequences to actually followcannot be said to be instigation.”8]Considering the law discussed above and thefacts of the case, prima facie it cannot be said that theapplicant has instigated or driven the deceased to commitsuicide. The applicant is in custody from 18th January, 2025.Considering the facts situation of this case, the applicationis allowed in the following terms :a]The applicant shall be released on bail inconnection with Crime No. 204/2024, registered withSonkhed Police Station for the offences punishableunder Section 108, 352, 351 (2), 351 (3), 3 (5) of theB.N.S. 2023, on furnishing PR bond of Rs.20,000/-with one or two sureties in the like amount to thesatisfaction of the trial Court. b]The applicant shall not enter the jurisdiction ofconcerned Police Station during pendency of the trial.c]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall not contact the informant, in any mannerwhatsoever, during the pendency of the trial. 6936.25BAd]The applicant shall co-operate with the trialCourt and he shall attend each and every date, unlessexempted by the trial Court.e]The applicant shall not tamper with theevidence of the prosecution and he shall not influencethe informant, witnesses and other persons concernedwith the case. f]The applicant, upon being released on bail,shall place on record of the trial Court the details ofhis Contact Number and residential address withupdates in case of any change. 9]Needless to say, in case of violation of any ofthe aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicantshall be liable to be cancelled. It is also clarified that theobservations made in this order are limited to the disposalof the present bail application. The concerned Court shallproceed further in the matter without being influenced bythe observations made hereinabove. 10]The application stands disposed of. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE DDC