HEMANT BHANSALIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

          Digitally signed
          by LAXMIKANT
LAXMIKANT GOPAL
GOPAL     CHANDAN                                                        (913) APL-374.26.DOCX
CHANDAN   Date:
          2026.03.23
          21:05:44 +0530
                                                                                          lgc

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                      CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 374 OF 2026

                             Hemant Bhansali                          ]
                             Age : 42 years, Occ: Business            ]
                             R/at : D/402, Nidhi Society,             ]
                             Bhakti Nagar, Umargaon,                  ]….. Applicant
                             Dist : Valsad, Gujarat                   ](Ori. Accused No.1

                                  Versus.

                             State of Maharashtra                     ]
                             Through Senior Inspector                 ]
                             V. P. Marg Police Station, Mumbai        ]…..Respondent

                                                   ----
                             Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Ms. Keral Mehta, Mr. Gautam
                             Tiwari i/b Ms. Tasneem Khatau for the Applicant.
                             Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for Respondent/State.
                                                   -------

                                                   CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                                    DATED :      18 MARCH 2026
                             Oral Judgement:-



                             1.   Heard Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned Advocate for the
                             Applicant and Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned APP for the
                             Respondent/State.

                             2.   By the present Application filed under Section 528 of
                             the Bhartiya Nangrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereafter


                                                             1
                                           (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


“BNSS”), the Applicant is before this Court challenging the
order dated 03 February 2026 passed by the Additional
Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai (hereafter “Sessions
Court”) in Sessions Case No. 881 of 2019 arising out of the
FIR bearing No. 30 of 2019 dated 04 February 2019 registered
with V. P. Marg Police Station, Mumbai, for offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 304-B, 306, 201, and 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter “impugned FIR”).

3.   The material facts for adjudication of the present
Application are that Rahul Babulal Bhansali (Accused No.2)
married Purvi Rahul Bhansali (“deceased Purvi”). After the
marriage, the deceased Purvi started residing at her
matrimonial home with Accused No.2 and her in-laws at
1102/10th Khetwadi Lane, Hari Krupa Height, Grant Road
(East), Mumbai – 400004. The Applicant (Accused No. 1) is
the brother-in-law of deceased, Purvi. He is a permanent
resident of Umargaon, District Valsad, Gujarat, where he
resides with his family. On 04 February 2019, deceased Purvi
was found hanging from the ceiling fan with a bedsheet tied
around her neck in her bedroom at her matrimonial home,
which was locked from the inside. Vimala Mukesh Shah
(mother of deceased Purvi) lodged a complaint with the V. P.
Marg Police Station, Mumbai, alleging that the Applicant,
Accused No.2, Babulal Bhansali, father-in-law of deceased
Purvi (Accused No.3) and Laxmi Babulal Bhansali, mother-in-
law of deceased Purvi (Accused No.4) were responsible for the
deceased Purvi's suicide. The allegations stated that the

                              2
                                              (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


deceased Purvi was subjected to harassment and cruelty,
which, according to the informant/complainant (mother of
deceased Purvi), drove her to commit suicide.

4.    Accused No.4 has expired.

5.    Upon investigation of the Crime bearing No.30 of 2019,
a charge-sheet was filed before the Sessions Court and later
registered as Sessions Case No.881 of 2019.

6.    The Applicant filed an Application dated 13 December
2021 (Exhibit-6) in Sessions Case No. 881 of 2019, under
Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereafter
“Cr.P.C.”), seeking discharge. By order dated 03 February
2026, the Sessions Court rejected the said Application
(Exhibit-6) filed by the Applicant (hereafter “impugned
order”).

7.    Thus, the Applicant, being aggrieved, is before this
Court against the impugned order.

8.    Mr. Niranjan Mundargi, learned Advocate for the
Applicant, submits that the material on record does not
support or even indicate prima facie grounds for proceeding
against the Applicant or for framing charges in respect of the
alleged offences. He submits that, even when taking all the
allegations at face value, they are vague and lack evidence, let
alone sufficient evidence to suggest that the Applicant was
responsible for driving deceased Purvi to commit suicide.
Referring to the statements of Arvind Mulchand Shah


                               3
                                              (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


(maternal uncle of deceased Purvi), Shilpa Ankit Shah (sister-
in-law of deceased Purvi), Zara Salim Khan (friend of
deceased Purvi), Dipshikha Narayansing Deval (friend of
deceased Purvi), and Dimple Kamlesh Bokadiya (sister of
deceased Purvi), he contends that none implicate the
Applicant or establish any connection to the incident that
allegedly led deceased Purvi to take her own life. He submits
that none of these witnesses' statements contain allegations of
the Applicant having committed any act that would have
driven deceased Purvi to suicide. He submits that, even
considering the statements regarding the alleged incident in
Dipshikha's statement, together with the record of the
WhatsApp chat, such evidence remains hearsay. For these
reasons, Mr Mundargi asserts that there is no material to
frame a charge in respect of the offences alleged in Sessions
Case No.881 of 2019.

9.    Mr.    Tanveer    Khan,       learned   APP      for     the
Respondent/State, submits that the material on record
indicating the act of the Accused No.2 (husband of the
deceased Purvi) and all in-laws collectively is sufficient to
conclude that this led the deceased Purvi to take a drastic step
to end her life. He, by referring to the comment made by the
Applicant in the context of the deceased Purvi, argues that
there is enough material to frame a charge against the
Applicant under Section 306 of the IPC.




                                4
                                                       (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


10.   The arguments canvassed before me by Mr. Niranjan
Mundargi, learned Advocate for the Applicant and Mr.
Tanveer Khan, learned APP concern the offence the Applicant
is alleged to have committed under Section 306 of the IPC,
read with Section 498A of the IPC. Regarding the other
offences, i.e., Section 304-B and 201 of the IPC, in Sessions
Case No. 881 of 2019, they submit that the allegations in that
regard are against the other Accused.

11.   Heard arguments. Perused the record.

12.   Reference to the Hon’ble Supreme Court's ruling on the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC in the case of Laxmi Das
v. State of West Bengal and others1 would be appropriate. In
paragraphs 7 to 12, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has made the
following observations:-

          “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
1
      2025 OnLine SC 120


                                     5
                                               (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


          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 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


                             6
                                                (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


    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 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


                             7
                                                       (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


             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.”



13.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of M. Mohan
vs. State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police2,
in paragraphs 44 and 45, has observed as follows:-

            “44. Abetment involves a mental process of
            instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person
            in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the
            part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing
            suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

            45. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of
            the cases decided by this Court are clear that in
            order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC
            there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the
            offence. It also requires an active act or direct act
            which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
            option and this act must have been intended to push
            the deceased into such a position that he/she
            committed suicide.”

14.   The material the prosecution relies on to frame the
charge under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC against the

2
       (2011) 3 SCC 626.


                                     8
                                                        (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


Applicant is the comment made by the Applicant, as stated by
Dipshikha Deval (friend of the deceased, Purvi). The specific
comment relied upon by the prosecution is reproduced below
verbatim:

        "पू या पत ला          चा   ळा यानं तर पू ने यांस घर आणु न
        सु प दे ु केले या े ळ राहुलचा भाऊ हे ं त भं "साल हा या या
        आई-       लांस $ पू ला % गाळ क'न " तु इसके हातसे खाना
        कैसे खा रहा है , ये न च औरत है , उसक औकात नह ं है इस घर -
        रहने क , तु उसके साथ सोता कैसे है " असे बोलु न रागाने राहुलचा
        गळा दाब2याचा प्रय न केला होता.”



15.   The other material, which Mr. Tanveer Khan, learned
APP, refers to is the WhatsApp chat between Arvind Shah
(maternal uncle of deceased Purvi) and deceased Purvi
wherein there is a reference to the comment which is
reproduced herein below in verbatim:-

        “My Jeth also everytime told me Aukaat mein
        reh Discipline mein reh Neech aurat”.


16.   The above is the only material on record that, according
to the prosecution, indicates that the Applicant committed the
offence charged in Sessions Case No. 881 of 2019.

17.   The Session Court, in the impugned order, on the basis
of the comment of the Applicant (as referred by Dipshikha
Deval) and the WhatsApp chat (as referred by Arvind Shah),
observed that there are sufficient grounds against the
Applicant to hold that he has actively abetted the offences
committed by Accused Nos. 2 to 4 and that the Applicant


                                      9
                                             (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


shares a common intention with them. Consequently, the
Sessions Court rejected the application seeking discharge.

18.   From the rival contentions, the point that falls for
consideration is whether the Sessions Court was justified in
dismissing the discharge application filed by the Applicant
under section 227 of the CRPC?

19.   Dipshikha Deval's statement shows that the Applicant's
comment was made nearly 1.5 years before the incident date
(04 February 2019). The comment was directed at Rahul
Bhansali (Accused No. 2), the husband of the deceased Purvi,
rather than to Purvi herself. The Applicant did not live with
Accused No. 2 or the deceased Purvi. The said comment does
not fall under the scope of instigation.

20.   WhatsApp chat between Arvind Shah and deceased Puri
is not sufficient to conclude that the Applicant encouraged
deceased Purvi to commit suicide or instigated her to do so.

21.   Upon consideration of the facts and evidence gathered,
there is no direct link between the alleged overt act against
the Applicant and the act of suicide. The record does not show
that the Applicant played any active or positive role in aiding
or abetting the deceased Purvi to commit suicide, much less
any act aimed at pushing the deceased Purvi into a position
where she would commit suicide. There is no evidence or
material on record from which an inference that the Applicant
aided or encouraged the deceased Purvi to commit suicide can


                                10
                                               (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


be drawn. Statements of witnesses referred by Mr. Mundargi,
or any other record, do not suggest any form of instigation by
the Applicant to abet the act of suicide.

22.   Section 498(A) of the IPC has two components, namely
that the husband or a relative of the husband should subject
the woman to cruelty. Such “cruelty” means willful conduct
that is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. “Harassment” as
used in the said section means to force the woman or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuable security and to harass her for non-
fulfillment of such demands. Taking the material against the
Applicant at face value, the same does not attract the
ingredients of Section 498A of the IPC.

23.   The Sessions Court failed to consider that there is no
sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial against the
Applicant as even if the material the prosecution proposes to
adduce to prove the guilt of the Applicant, is fully accepted
before it is challenged by cross-examination or rebutted by the
defence evidence, it cannot show that the Applicant
committed the offence as alleged. Reasons assigned by the
Sessions Court in the impugned order for dismissing the
Application for discharge (Exhibit-6) suffer from perversity.

24.   In view of the above, I find that “ there is not sufficient”
ground for proceeding against the Applicant (Accused No.1).
The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside,


                                11
                                              (913) APL-374.26.DOCX


consequently, the Application for discharge (Exhibit-6) filed by
the Applicant is allowed. The Applicant stands discharged in
Sessions Case No. 881 of 2019.

25.   There shall be no orders as to costs.




                                       (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




                               12