Sharda Babasaheb Sasane And Another v. The State Of Maharashtra
2025:BHC-AUG:9091
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD 951 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 403 OF 2025
1. SHARDA BABASAHEB SASANE
2. KADUBAL @ KADUBA BABASAHEB SASANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Gautam J. Pahilwan (Absent) APP for Respondent/State: Mr. S. P. Sonpawale ...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 26.03.2025 P.C. :
1] None present for the applicant.
2] The applicants are apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No.36/2025, dated 06.02.2025, registered at Paithan Police Station, District Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 189(2), 190, 191(2), 115, 126(2), 308(2), 308(3), 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3] This court by order dated 12.03.2025 granted interim protection to the applicants noticing submissions and reasons in paragraphs no.3 and 4, as under: "3] Perused the FIR. It is alleged in the FIR that the deceased has committed suicide on account of false case under the provisions of Atrocities
Act being filed against the deceased and his family members. Prima facie it cannot be said that the applicants have instigated or driven the deceased to commit suicide. In the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in respect of abatement of suicide at para Nos.13, 14 and 15 as under:- "13. In Swamy Prahaladdas vs. State of M.P., [1995 Supp (3) SCC 438], the appellant remarked to the deceased that 'go and die' and the deceased thereafter, committed suicide. This Court held that:- "3. ...Those words are casual nature which are often employed in the heat of the moment between quarrelling people. Nothing serious is expected to follow thereafter. The said act does not reflect the requisite 'mens rea' on the assumption that these words would be carried out in all events. ..."
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. It was further held that the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Bhantu Vs. State of West Bengal,(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held as under:- "12. Thus, this Court has consistently
taken the view that before holding an accused guilty of an offence under section 306 IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. [Emphasis supplied]"
4] In view of the above, in order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required and the intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section 306. Considering the facts situation of this case, the applicants are granted interim protection in the following terms:-..."
4] Considering the reasons given under order dated 12.03.2025, the interim protection granted earlier can be confirmed.
5] In view of the above, the interim protection granted by order dated 12.03.2025 stands confirmed, on the following terms:
i] The applicants shall attend the police station as and when required by the Investigating Officer. ii] The applicants shall not tamper with the evidence of the prosecution in any manner. They shall not influence the informant, witnesses and other persons concerned with the case.
iii] The applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and also in the proceedings before the trial Court.
6] In the event, the applicants violate any of the conditions specified in this order, it shall be liable to be cancelled.
7] It is also clarified that the observations made in this order are limited to the disposal of the present anticipatory bail application and the trial Court shall proceed further in the matter without being influenced by the observations made hereinabove.
8] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe