Bombay High Court

RAHUL DATTATRAY CHAVANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that there is no prima facie evidence of abetment of suicide by the applicant and therefore allowed the anticipatory bail application.

Summary

The applicant, Rahul Dattatray Chavan, sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for alleged offences under Sections 108, 80, 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, arising from the suicide of his sister‑in‑law. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, as brother‑in‑law, raised suspicion about the deceased's character, contributing to her suicide, while the defence argued that he did not reside with the deceased and the allegations were vague and unsupported. The court examined the legal standards for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC, citing Supreme Court and High Court precedents that require direct or indirect instigation, proximity, and mens rea. It found no prima facie evidence that the applicant instigated, conspired, or aided the suicide, concluding that the FIR merely indicated harassment. Consequently, the court granted anticipatory bail with conditions, ordering the applicant to cooperate with the investigation and refrain from influencing witnesses.

Issues considered

Whether the applicant's alleged conduct amounts to abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted under Section 482 of the BNSS in the absence of prima facie evidence
Whether custodial interrogation of the applicant is warranted

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 482
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 108, 3(5), 80, 85
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 107, 306

Subjects

anticipatory bail
abetment of suicide
Section 306 IPC
Section 107 IPC
harassment
suicide
bail conditions
evidentiary standard

Judgment

1/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2026

Rahul Dattatray Chavan ….Applicant
Versus.
The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents

-----

Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde (Through VC), for Applicant.
Mr. S. H. Yadav, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State.
Ms. Smita Shinde, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.3 (Through
Legal Aid).
PSI, Mr. S. V. Salve, Mandrup Police Station, Solapur Rural, present.
Digitally -------
signed by
SHANTANU
SHANTANU SHANKARSA
SHANKARSA DHUDUM
DHUDUM Date:
2026.10.01
12:42:23
+0530

CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.

1. Heard, Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 -

State and Ms. Smita Shinde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 482 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the

Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with

Crime No. 324 of 2026 registered at Mandrup Police Station for offences

Shantanu S. Dhudum
2/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

punishable under Sections 108, 80, 85 read with Section 3(5) of the

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states

that there are two (2) accused in the present crime. The Applicant

(Accused No. 2) is the brother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Accused

No. 1 in Crime No. 324 of 2026 is the husband of the deceased.

4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased (Saroja

Amol Chavan) was harassed by Accused No. 1 (husband) and the Applicant

by assaulting her and taking suspicion on the character of the deceased.

This led to the deceased committing suicide.

5. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Applicant,

submits that if considered, the allegations indicate abuse, assault, etc.,

against Accused No. 1 (husband). He submits that the Applicant does not

reside in the matrimonial house of the deceased. He submits that the FIR

refers to the Applicant raising suspicion about the character of the

deceased. He submits that, apart from the said allegations, which,

according to Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, are vague, there is no other material

indicating that the Applicant could have caused the deceased to take such a

drastic step to end her life. He states that the Applicant is ready to appear

before the Investigating Officer and fully co-operate with the investigation

of Crime No. 324 of 2026.

Shantanu S. Dhudum
3/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

6. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 –

State, submits that the FIR names the Applicant as having doubted the

character of the deceased.

7. Ms. Smita Shinde, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3,

submits that the deceased, a mother of two minors, was compelled to end

her life in view of the allegations against her character by the Accused

No.1(husband) and the Applicant. She further submits that the minor

children of the deceased are presently with Respondent No. 3.

8. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates

for the parties.

9. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegations against the

Applicant are that the Applicant raised suspicion about the character of the

deceased. The Applicant is the brother-in-law of the deceased, who, as

stated by Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, did not reside with the deceased either

before her suicide or at any point in time. This statement of Mr. Hrishikesh

Shinde is not contested by Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P.

10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Das Vs. State

of West Bengal and Ors. 1, in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 has observed as

follows :-

1 2025 OnLine SC 120

Shantanu S. Dhudum
4/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready

reference:

“306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of
such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC
which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below:

“107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the
doing of a thing, who—
First.—Instigates any person to do that thing;
or

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other
person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and
in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful
misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a
material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause
or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing.

Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at
the time of the commission of an act, does anything
in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to
aid the doing of that act.”

8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is
clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect
instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of
Shantanu S. Dhudum
5/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the
commission of suicide.

9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the
judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of
Maharashtra, wherein this Court has interpreted
Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed:

“8. Reading these sections together would indicate that
there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or
intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these
three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must
have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in
conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit
suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the
person to commit suicide.
…
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence
recorded by the courts below and the legal position
established through statutory and judicial pronouncements,
we are of the view that there is no proximate link between
the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has
failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations
against the appellant. The appellant has not played any
active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the
deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the
complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as
recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation
suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the
commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the
appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at
any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.”

10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has
further interpreted the offence as below:

“13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-
first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the
abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to
sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must
necessarily be proved that the accused person has
contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or
indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one
of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has
to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been
interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well-
established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is

Shantanu S. Dhudum
6/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of
instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which
must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by
the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a
clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should
put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no
other option but to commit suicide.”

11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that
define the act of ‘instigation’. Accordingly, in
Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court
observed:

“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke,
incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement
of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words
must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation
must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the
consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present
one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or
omission or by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation
may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or
emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow cannot be said to be instigation.”

12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State
of H.P., wherein the Supreme Court held:

“43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we
are required to address whether there has been abetment in
committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation
of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a
person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section
306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to
cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come
within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a
word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment.
There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the
victim to put an end to life.”

11. Prima facie, the material showing that the Applicant instigated

or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide or conspired with Accused

Shantanu S. Dhudum
7/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

No.1 to encourage the deceased to commit suicide or committed an

intentional act (or omission) to aid the deceased in committing suicide, is

lacking. The allegations made against the Applicant in the F.I.R. may

amount to harassment.

12. In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant

is not required.

13. This Application is allowed on the following terms and

conditions:

ORDER

A) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Rahul Dattatray

Chavan, in connection with Crime No.324 of 2026

registered at Mandrup Police Station, the Applicant shall

be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or

two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the

Investigating Officer, Mandrup Police Station.

B) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer,

Mandrup Police Station, investigating Crime No.324 of

2026, on 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th October, 2026 from

10:00 a.m. to 1:00, and thereafter as and when required

Shantanu S. Dhudum
8/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant shall co-

operate with the investigation.

C) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person/s

acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade such

person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or any

police officer.

D) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and

shall not influence the witnesses, in any manner.

E) The Applicant shall provide the Investigation Officer

with his residential address along with proof, his contact

number and must inform the Investigating Officer of any

changes to this information from time to time.

14. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit

Bench at Kolhapur, shall quantify and pay the legal fees payable under the

Legal Aid Scheme to Advocate Ms. Smita Shinde, who has appeared and

represented Respondent No. 3 in this Application.

15. The observations made in this order are prima facie

confined to the case of the Applicant for deciding the Bail Application

and will not affect the trial.

Shantanu S. Dhudum
9/9
918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC

16. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.528 of 2026 is

disposed of.

( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)

Shantanu S. Dhudum

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…