NILESH DATTATRAYA JEJURARKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                           909.ABA-750.26.DOC




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             Digitally signed
             by PRACHI
PRACHI
PRANESH
             PRANESH                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
             NANDIWADEKAR
NANDIWADEKAR
             Date: 2026.09.11
             10:35:10 +0530     ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 750 OF 2026

                     Nilesh Dattatraya Jejurkar                           … Applicant
                     V/s.
                     The State of Maharashtra & Anr.                      …. Respondents
                                                 ______________________
                     Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Ms. Abhilasha Pawar i/by Mr. Sumit Patil,
                     for the Applicant.
                     Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the Respondent-State.
                     Mr. Abaysinhn Bhosale a/w Mr. Ankur Pahade (through VC) a/w
                     Mr. Sanjay Kokane for Respondent No.2.
                     Mr. B.P. Patil, PSI attached to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik.
                                                 ______________________


                                                 CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
                                                 DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026
                     P. C. :-

                     1.         Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the

                     learned APP for the Respondent-State.


                     2.         By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya

                     Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre-

                     arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.118 of 2026 registered with

                     Gangapur Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under

                     Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.



                                                        Page 1
                     PPN
                                                     909.ABA-750.26.DOC




3.    It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the

Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He

submits that as per the settled legal position, in order to sustain a

charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section

108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), there must be material

that Accused person has contributed to the suicide committed by

the deceased by some direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the

commission of suicide. He submits that such instigation or

incitement should reveal a clear intention to compel the deceased

to commit suicide and should put the victim in such a position that

he or she would have no other option but to commit suicide.

4.    It is submitted that mere allegation of harassment without

any positive action proximate 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 of the IPC is not sustainable. He submitted

that to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, still there has

to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the

direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last

proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme

act of taking one's life.




                                Page 2
PPN
                                                          909.ABA-750.26.DOC




5.    It is submitted that merely because the victim was

continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to

the extreme act of taking his or her life, it cannot by itself, result in

a finding of positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea

cannot be claimed merely by what goes on in the mind of the

victim. It is submitted that what constitutes mens rea is the

intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible

from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances

which, in all probability could lead to such an end. The real

intention of the Accused and whether he intended by his action to

at least possibly drive the victim to suicide is the sure test.

6.    To substantiate these contentions, the learned counsel

appearing for the Applicant relies on judgement of Supreme Court

in the case of Vinod Shivakumar versus State of Maharashtra 1.

Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in

the case of Naresh Kumar versus State of Haryana2, and more

particularly on paragraph nos.23 and 25 which reads as under :-

      “23.   Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant
      harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other
      option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that
      the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide.

1     2026 SCC OnLine SC 153
2     2024 (3) SCC 573



                                   Page 3
PPN
                                                          909.ABA-750.26.DOC




      A person intends a consequence when he: (1) foresees that it will
      happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2)
      desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability,
      justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when
      both these components are actually present in the accused’s mind
      (a “subjective” test).”

      “25.    It is now well settled that in order to convict a person
      under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit
      the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused
      guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an
      active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide.
      The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly
      present but has to be visible and conspicuous.”


7.    It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the

Supreme Court concerning abetment of suicide, even if the entire

case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also it cannot be

said that the Applicant foresaw that the said incident of suicide

would happen and that he desires the same to happen. He submits

that there is no mens rea to commit the offence. He, therefore,

submitted that the Applicant is a doctor and he is looking after his

two daughters. He submitted that unfortunately, his wife-deceased

has died by suicide, however, there is no mens rea and, therefore,

Anticipatory Bail Application be allowed.

8.    On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that as the

Applicant was having relationship outside marriage with one

doctor Swati Chavan who is working as head of Psychiatry




                                   Page 4
PPN
                                                  909.ABA-750.26.DOC




department in Civil Hospital, Nashik where the Applicant is also

working as a Psychiatist, the deceased was coninuously harrassed.

Learned APP submitted that in fact said Swati Chavan was also

harassing the deceased. He submitted that in this background,

when there is a marriage of cousin sister of the deceased on 5

March 2026, the Applicant came to the said marriage, however, he

refused to get family photograph with the deceased and insulted

the deceased in front of all her relatives and immediately on 6

March 2026, in the morning, the incident took place. Therefore, he

submitted that there is mens rea and the incident has taken place

in close proximity with the said insulting behaviour of the

Applicant towards deceased.

9.    The learned APP also submitted that in fact, investigation is

necessary as there are some aspects which show that the crime

may not be of suicide but of murder. He stated that the Post

Mortem (PM) was also performed at the Civil Hospital, Nashik

where the Applicant is working as a doctor in a Psychiatry

department. He submitted that the allegation is that the Applicant

has relationship outside marriage with the another doctor i.e.,

doctor Swati Chavan, who is working as head of Psychiatry




                              Page 5
PPN
                                                   909.ABA-750.26.DOC




department in Civil Hospital Nashik and there is every possibility

that Post Mortem also may not be accurate and, therefore,

investigation is necessary.

10.   Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 i.e. First

Informant submitted that there are grave doubts about the incident

concerning suicide. He states that the photograph of the incident in

question shows that the rope was found to be attached to the

window. Thus, it is highly impossible that the incident of suicide is

possible by the manner in which it is suggested.

11.   Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that

although an allegation is made concerning the relationship outside

marriage with said doctor Swati Chavan, however, the same is not

admitted by the Applicant.

12.   Perusal of the record shows that both Applicant and the

deceased were taking treatment as both of them are suffering from

depression. The F.I.R. specifically records that for the last two

years, the said doctor Swati Chavan was frequently coming to the

house of the Applicant and the deceased informed to the First

Informant in or about December 2025 that the Applicant is having

relationship outside marriage with doctor Swati Chavan who is the




                               Page 6
PPN
                                                          909.ABA-750.26.DOC




head of Psychiatry department in Civil Hospital, Nashik where the

Applicant is also working as psychiatrist doctor. Although it is

submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that

the relationship is not admitted, however, the statement of Dr.

Monali Samir Deshpande dated 9 April 2026 from whom the

Applicant and the deceased, both of them, were taking treatment

indicates about said relationship.

13.   It is relevant to note that in the F.I.R., it is stated that said

Swati Chavan has also called the deceased in or about January

2026 and stated as under :-


      तु आता तु झ्या नवऱ्याला आवडत नाही, तु झ्यात दोष आहे , तु

      वाईट आहे , तु झे शि क्षण कमी असून तु अल्पबु ध्दी आहे . त्यामु ळे हे

      सव$ घडत आहे ."


      The English translation of above is as under :-


      Your husband doesn't like you anymore, the fault lies

      with you, you are a bad person, you are uneducated and

      unintelligent, that is why all this is happening."

14.   The F.I.R. records that on 5 March 2026, although the

Applicant attended the marriage of cousin sister of the deceased,




                                   Page 7
PPN
                                                   909.ABA-750.26.DOC




he refused to get family photograph and insulted the deceased in

front of all her relatives and the incident of death of deceased by

suicide has taken place on 6 March 2026. Thus, it is clear that even

the criterias which are set out in the decisions of the Supreme

Court in the case of Vinod Shivakumar (supra) and in Naresh

Kumar (supra) are made applicable to the facts of the present

case, then also it is prima facie seen that there is mens rea for the

commission of the crime.

15.   Perusal of the records shows that there is continuous

harassment on account of the Applicant's relationship outside

marriage and the incident has taken place on 6 March 2026,

immediately after 5 March 2026, when the Applicant has insulted

the deceased in front of her relatives and refused to get family

photograph inter alia with the deceased.

16.   There is also substance in the contention raised by the

learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent

No.2 that the incident may not be of suicide but of murder and,

therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary.

17.   The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty

alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav versus State of Maharashtra3, has

3     (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1489




                                  Page 8
PPN
                                                    909.ABA-750.26.DOC




held that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought

not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong

reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a

person accused of grave offence. It has been further held that while

exercising power to grant pre-arrest bail, the Court has to be very

cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the

accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may

hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes

lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence.

18.   In the decision of State v. Anil Sharma4, the Supreme Court,

while setting aside the Order of pre-arrest bail granted by the High

Court of Himachal Pradesh, has held that custodial interrogation is

qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect

who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438

of CrPC. It has been held that effective interrogation of suspected

person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful

information and also materials which would have been concealed.

Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person

knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail

order during the time he is interrogated. It has been further held

4     (1997) 7 SCC 187




                               Page 9
PPN
                                                   909.ABA-750.26.DOC




that very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a

mere ritual.

19.   In any case, apart from the aspect that prima facie the

Applicant is involved in the crime of abetment of suicide, there are

certain indications showing that the case may be one of

commission of offence of murder.

20.   In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant

of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly the Anticipatory Bail Application

is dismissed.

21.   Request is made for stay of this order for a period of three

weeks, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said

request is rejected.


                                         [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]




                               Page 10
PPN