Kumar Manilal Gandhi And ORS v. The State Of Maharashtra

Sherla V.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.999 OF 2015

1) Kumar Manilal Gandhi

2) Dhiraj Kumar Gandhi

3) Dhawal Kumar Gandhi

4) Milind Kumar Gandhi ... Applicants Vs.

The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent Mr.J.R. Shaikh i/b S.I. Nandode for the Applicants Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP, for Respondent - State CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: JULY 22, 2015 P.C.:

1.

The application is moved for pre-arrest bail as the applicants/accused are apprehending arrest in C.R. No.174 of 2015 registered at Yavat police station, Pune, for the offences punishable under sections 306, 504, 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. One Vijay Himmatlal Shah is the informant. He gave information of suicide committed by his brother Sanjay Shah on 16.6.2015. It is the case of the prosecution that Sanjay Shah was working as a trustee in Shree Sumatinath Shwetambar Jain Mandir Trust, Yavat. One Rajendra Sumatilal Shah became Chairman of the trust. Sanjay Shah furnished accounts to him one year prior to the incident. However, nobody took any 1 / 5

objection to that. However, two to three months prior to the incident, the applicants/accused started demanding accounts from Sanjay. They abused him. This was going on continuously. They also threatened him of his life in the presence of the complainant. On 15.6.2015, in the evening, at around 7.30pm, applicant/accused No.1 Kumar Manilal Gandhi sent a note to the deceased that a meeting was called in respect of the accounts of Jain Mandir Trust on 16.6.2015. Then, the deceased Sanjay informed his brother that the applicants/accused were harassing and questioning him continuously in respect of the accounts of the Jain trust and they are making allegations that he misappropriated funds of the Trust for his personal benefit. He told him that he would go to their shop and discuss about the accounts.

If they would not listen to him, he would pour kerosene and set himself on fire. The complainant tried to stop him, however, he went there and returned. He informed the complainant that the applicants/accused abused him and were not ready to listen to him and they told him that they did not want set him on fire but kill him with sticks. The complainant tried to console his brother, however, his brother was scared. At that time again, the applicants/accused arrived there and were holding sticks. They starting abusing. One Suresh Shelke intervened. Thus, they went away. Again on the same day at night, applicant/accused Milind arrived at the shop with stick and he abused and threatened him and told him that they would not leave him alive.

Suresh intervened and sent Milind away. The deceased was under tension. On 16.6.2015 in the morning at around 6.30am, when he and his family members could not notice Sanjay at the house, they started searching for Sanjay. Ultimately, they found him lying dead wounded on the rail track. Hence, this complaint was given by the brother of the deceased against the applicants/accused.

2.

The learned Counsel for the applicants/accused has submitted that no offence is in fact made out under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The applicants/accused have demanded accounts of the trust and there is no wrong in demanding the accounts of a public trust from a trustee. They never wanted him to die or commit suicide and thus, no offence is made out under section 306. The learned Counsel further submitted that other two accused Jitendra and Bhupendra were given pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court.

3.

Learned Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. He relied on the complaints and submitted that there were threats to the deceased and so he committed suicide. He submitted that the case of the other two accused who were granted pre-arrest bail, did not go with sticks to threaten the deceased. Moreover, their mother is of 70 years of age and suffering from Cancer and they had to arrange money for her and therefore, the Sessions Court granted pre-arrest bail to those co-accused. 3 / 5

4.

In the case of offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court has to first verify whether the ingredients under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code are present and satisfied or not? There should be some instigation, abetment or aid or engagement in some act that should lead the deceased to commit suicide. It depends on facts of the case and the nature of harassment or inducement or instigation by the accused. In the present case, the applicants were interested in the accounts of the public trust. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants/accused, it is a right of the member of trust or the beneficiary of the trust to demand accounts of the public trust and the trustee is liable to give accounts.

The deceased Sanjay was one of the ex-trustees and, therefore, if at all, the applicants/accused suspected that he had misappropriated the public funds of the temple, that cannot lead to any offence. However, the matter cannot be stretched that far that a pressure is built up on the deceased to commit suicide. In the present case, the applicants/accused prima facie, as was mentioned in the complaint, were demanding accounts continuously since 2 to 3 months prior to the incident. Due to this, the deceased came under tremendous pressure. The complainant had narrated the incidents of previous day i.e., of 15.6.2015. The applicant/accused No.1 sent a chit to the deceased of the meeting of the trust in respect of the accounts.

to commit suicide. However, further details which are given by the complainant are undoubtedly incriminating acts by the applicants. It was a kind of raging. The applicants/accused as per the FIR, arrived at the shop of the deceased and his brother. Two of them were armed with sticks and they wanted to kill him. They threatened him of his life. Thereafter, again one of them i.e., accused Milind arrived at night with sticks and threatened him of his life. Due to continuous harassment, fear and terror created in the mind of the deceased definitely led him to commit suicide. It appears that it is a case where the applicants/accused have right to ask for the accounts, however, they went further and crossed their limits and terrorised the deceased which ultimately led to his death. 5.

Prima facie, therefore, I am of the view that it is not a case to grant pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the application is rejected. 6.

At this stage, the learned Counsel for applicants/accused request for three weeks' extension of the interim protection granted by this Court earlier so as to enable him to approach the Supreme Court in appeal. Accordingly, the interim protection granted on 15.7.2015 is extended for a period of three weeks from today.

(MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 5 / 5