Bombay High Court

YUVRAJ DATTU ALIAS DATTATRAY BHOLEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The threat alleged to have been made two months before the deceased’s suicide does not satisfy the proximity requirement for abetment under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and an extra‑marital relationship alone does not constitute abetment, therefore anticipatory bail is granted.

Summary

Yuvraj Dattu applied for anticipatory bail in a case where the deceased allegedly committed suicide after being threatened by the applicant, who was also accused of having an extra‑marital relationship with the deceased’s wife. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 108, 352, 351(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The applicant argued that even if the extra‑marital relationship is true, it does not constitute an offence under Section 108 and that the alleged threat was made two months before the suicide, lacking the required proximity. The State contended that the threats and the statement recorded under Section 183 indicated abetment. The Court held that the two‑month gap defeats the proximity test for abetment and that an extra‑marital relationship alone does not amount to abetment, thus granting interim anticipatory bail.

Issues considered

Whether the alleged threat made two months prior to the deceased’s suicide satisfies the proximity requirement for abetment under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.
Whether an extra‑marital relationship with the deceased’s wife can constitute abetment to suicide.
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted in view of the material on record.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 108, 183, 351(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5), 352

Subjects

anticipatory bail
abetment of suicide
proximity doctrine
extra‑marital relationship
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

                                  -1-
                                                         aba695.26.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

      983 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 695 OF 2026

Yuvraj Dattu Alias Dattatray Bhole               ….Applicant

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra                         …..Respondent

Mr. S. S. Birajdar, Advocate for Applicant
Ms. P. J. Bharad, APP for the State.

                               CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J.
                               DATE : 25th AUGUST, 2026.
PER COURT :


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

0040/2026,    registered   with   Murum      Police   Station,   District

Dharashiv, for the offences punishable under Sections 108, 352,

351(2), 351(3) r/w 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.



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

and present Applicant were in extra marital relationship. There is

allegation against the present Applicant that he used to threaten and

abuse the deceased. It is on account of threats and being fed up by

the same, the deceased committed suicide on 10.02.2026.
                                  -2-
                                                           aba695.26.odt

3.    Learned Counsel for Applicant submits that even if the

allegation   against   the   Applicant   that   he   had   extra   marital

relationship with the wife of deceased is accepted to be true, it does

not become a ground for offence under Section 108 of BNS.            It is

submitted that in any case, the alleged threat is given by the

Applicant to the deceased prior to two months of commission of

suicide by the deceased and as such, there is no proximity between

these two incidents. Hence, custodial interrogation of the Applicant

is not necessary.



4.    Learned APP opposed the application by referring to the

allegations against the Applicant in the First Information Report. She

also refers to the transcript on record indicating threats being given

to the deceased by the Applicant.        Reference is also made to the

statement of brother of deceased recorded under Section 183 of

BNSS.



5.    Even if material on record is accepted to be correct, on the face

of it, offence of abetment to commit suicide is not made out against

the Applicant. The alleged threats were given two months prior to

commission of suicide by the deceased.           As such, there is no
                                  -3-
                                                        aba695.26.odt

proximity between these two incidents. As far as allegation of having

extra marital relationship with the wife of deceased is concerned, this

Court finds substance in the contention of learned Counsel for the

Applicant that on that count alone, it cannot be said that the

Applicant had abetted commission of suicide. Hence, application is

allowed in terms of interim relief.



                                                 ( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…