Bombay High Court

GULCHAND SUKHDEV KOLHEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISMISSED

Holding

The anticipatory bail application was dismissed as the applicant’s alleged conduct constituted a prima facie case of serious offences.

Summary

The applicant, Gulchand Sukhdev Kolhe, sought anticipatory bail in connection with a suicide case (Crime No. 293/2026) alleging offences under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The FIR alleged that after the deceased repaid a loan, the applicant abused and assaulted the deceased's brother and mother on 9 July 2026 and later threatened the deceased, actions purportedly leading to the deceased’s suicide. The applicant argued that merely demanding repayment does not constitute abetment of suicide and that no assault on the deceased was recorded, contending that custodial interrogation was unnecessary. The State opposed, highlighting the assault on the relatives, the subsequent threat, and the temporal proximity of these acts to the suicide, asserting a prima facie case of involvement. The Court held that the material on record indicated the applicant’s participation in serious offences and that the absence of custodial interrogation does not merit anticipatory bail, consequently dismissing the application.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory bail despite allegations of assault, threat, and alleged abetment of suicide.
Whether the demand for repayment of a loan, coupled with alleged abusive conduct, amounts to an offence under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether the necessity of custodial interrogation influences the grant of anticipatory bail.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 108, 115(2), 3(5), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
abetment of suicide
assault
threat
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:43615




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     930 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1462 OF 2026

                                 GULCHAND SUKHDEV KOLHE
                                          VERSUS
                          THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

           Mr. S. J. Salunke, Advocate for Applicant
           Mr. S. B. Jadhav, APP for Respondents/State

                                                     CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                                                     DATED    : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026

           PER COURT :-

           1.    The Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail in connection with Crime No.

           293/2026, registered with Kallam Police Station, District Dharashiv, for the

           offences punishable under Sections 108, 115(2), 352 read with Section 3(5)

           of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.


           2.    The First Information Report indicates that the wife of the deceased,

           who committed suicide on 09.07.2026, lodged the report alleging that,

           despite the deceased having repaid the money obtained from the Applicant,

           the Applicant abused and harassed him, which resulted in the deceased

           committing suicide.


           3.    Learned Advocate for the Applicant submits that it is a settled position

           of law that insisting upon repayment of money by a person who has lent


           930.aba1462.26.odt                                                      1 of 3
money to the deceased does not, by itself, amount to the offence of abetment

of suicide. He drew the attention of the Court to the First Information Report,

which, according to him, does not indicate any incident of assault having been

committed by the Applicant upon the deceased. Having regard to these facts,

it is submitted that custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not necessary.


4.    Learned APP opposed the grant of any protection to the Applicant by

referring to the First Information Report as well as the statements recorded

during the course of investigation. It is pointed out that, on the fateful day, at

about 5:00 p.m., the Applicant had abused and assaulted the brother and

mother of the deceased. This, according to the learned APP, was followed by a

threat being extended to the deceased. It is submitted that there is a

connection between the two incidents and that they occurred within a

proximate period of time.


5.    There cannot be any dispute with regard to the submission canvassed

by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that a person who lends money has

a right to seek repayment thereof. That, however, cannot be construed as

conferring upon such person a right to recover the money by assaulting,

threatening or abusing the borrower.


6.    In the present case, the allegations made in the First Information



930.aba1462.26.odt                                                          2 of 3
Report, duly supported by the statements of the witnesses, indicate that on

09.07.2026, at about 5:00 p.m., the present Applicant abused and assaulted

the brother and mother of the deceased. It is further alleged that, at about

9:00 p.m. on the same day, the Applicant threatened the deceased. Thus,

there is material on record indicating that the acts attributed to the Applicant

were of such nature as to have compelled the deceased to end his life.


7.    The two incidents occurred within a short span of time and were

followed by the deceased committing suicide. At this stage, there is sufficient

material indicating the involvement of the present Applicant in the alleged

offence. Once such involvement is prima facie found in a serious offence,

merely because custodial interrogation may not be necessary, the Applicant

cannot, in the facts of the present case, be granted protection. Hence, the

application stands dismissed.



                                                      ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)
ssp




930.aba1462.26.odt                                                         3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…