Bombay High Court
XYZversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court's grant of bail was not perverse and, in the absence of any breach of conditions, the applications for cancellation of bail were dismissed.
Summary
The State filed applications seeking cancellation of bail granted to four accused in a case of alleged abetment of suicide, arguing that the trial court had not examined the investigation material and that the allegations were serious. The defense contended that the charge sheet lacked specific evidence linking any accused to the alleged harassment and that the investigation was complete. The High Court examined the suicide note, which mentioned the accused in an omnibus manner, and noted the absence of concrete evidence of the nature or gravity of harassment required for abetment of suicide. The Court also found no breach of bail conditions and that the accused were attending trial regularly. Concluding that the trial court's order was not perverse and there was no justification for cancellation, the Court dismissed all applications.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in granting bail to the accused in an alleged abetment of suicide case without specific evidentiary support.
- Whether there has been any breach of bail conditions that warrants cancellation of bail.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR and suicide note are sufficient to justify cancellation of bail.
Subjects
- bail
- cancellation of bail
- abetment of suicide
- suicide note
- investigation material
- breach of conditions
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:41619
-1-
952-ABA-172-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 172 OF 2025
WITH
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 176 OF 2025
WITH
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 178 OF 2025
WITH
APPLICATION FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL NO. 177 OF 2025
XYZ
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
......
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Ashish Babasaheb Lokhande
APP for Respondent - State : Mr. D. J. Patil
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Prathamesh M. Borde h/f. Mr.
Shailesh S. Chapalgaonkar
...…
CORAM : HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.
DATED : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard learned Advocates for respective parties.
2. All these applications are filed for cancellation of the
bail of respective accused persons who have been granted bail by
the learned Trial Court in connection with the FIR bearing No.383
of 2025 registered with Kopargaon Police Station, Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar by order dated 2nd September, 2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon.
3. Learned Advocate submits that the learned Trial Court
-2-
952-ABA-172-2025
without looking into the merits of the investigation material and
without appreciating the averments made in the FIR that the
deceased was subjected to constant mental and verbal harassment,
have released all the applicants on bail. According to the learned
Advocate, there is ample material available on record in the nature
of statement of the witnesses, which shows that the present
applicants cumulatively have caused mental pressure on the
deceased, due to which she was forced to commit suicide. The
learned Advocate also submitted that the bail has been granted to
the applicants in such a heinous offense within a period of two
months from the date of offence. In such a heinous offense, the bail
should not have been granted to the applicants, and therefore, the
order by which the bail has been granted is perverse.
4. He further submits that as far as respondent No. 2 in
Application for Cancellation of Bail No.172 of 2025 is concerned,
first bail application of respondent No. 2 was rejected and without
there being any change in circumstance, the Trial Court has
considered successive bail application and have released the
accused on bail.
5. Per contra, learned Advocate appearing for accused/
respondent No. 2 submits that the investigation in the offense was
-3-
952-ABA-172-2025
completed and the charge sheet papers were made available to the
Court and the investigation papers were made available to the
Court for its perusal. He argued that there is no iota of material in
the entire charge sheet as to what is the specific role played by any
of the accused persons for causing abetment of suicide due to
which the deceased had committed suicide. He submitted that the
nature of allegation are only verbal, without any corroborative
piece of material, wherein omnibus allegation that all the accused
persons used to cause harassment by asking the deceased to have a
love affair with one of the accused Aditya. He submitted that apart
from this, there is absolutely no evidence on record to connect the
accused persons with the alleged offence.
6. I have perused the entire material of the investigation
as well as the impugned order by which the bail has been granted
to the accused persons. No doubt, the name of applicants are
reflected in the suicide note, which has been written by the
deceased prior to committing suicide. However, the suicide note
makes reference to all the family members of the accused Aditya as
well as to all his friends. The allegations are not specific, but they
are omnibus in nature, which merely suggest that there used to be
constant persistence at the behest of the accused persons on the
deceased to have a love affair with the accused Aditya. There are
-4-
952-ABA-172-2025
absolutely no allegations as to the manner in which the
harassment has been caused to the deceased, whether the
harassment was verbal, mental or physical. That also has not been
specified. The law pertaining to the abetment of suicide is very
clear that the harassment so caused to the deceased should be of
such a nature and of such a gravity that the deceased is left with no
other option but to commit suicide. The learned Trial Court have
taken into consideration the entire material of charge sheet and
have specifically held that there is no material to connect the
accused persons with the alleged offence.
7. Secondly, the present application is being heard today
i.e. on 3rd September, 2026 and impugned orders granting bail are
dated 2nd September 2026. This Court specifically put a query to
the learned Advocate appearing for applicant whether there is any
breach of conditions and whether the accused persons are
attending the trial regularly, to which he answered in the
affirmative by saying that there is no breach of conditions and that
there are no absence on the part of accused persons.
8. Learned APP on the other hand also submits that, trial
has already started. Learned APP also reiterates that there is no
breach of condition and summons has already been issued to all the
-5-
952-ABA-172-2025
accused persons for securing their presence before the Trial Court.
Thus, according to learned APP, the trial will commence in a
shorter period.
9. Taking into consideration that the learned Trial Court’s
order does not suffer from any perversity and secondly that there
is no breach of any of the conditions and no apprehension raised by
the learned APP that the accused persons will not be available for
the purpose of trial, the applications does not deserve to be
entertained.
10. Hence, all the applications stand dismissed.
(HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR)
JUDGE
Tandale
Checking your session…