Bombay High Court

KISHOR BALASO MANEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The court held that the prosecution failed to establish a proximate link or mens rea for abetment of suicide, and therefore bail was warranted.

Summary

The High Court considered a bail application filed by Kishor Balaso Mane under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. He was accused in Crime No. 765 of 2025 of offences including Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that he demanded Rs. 5,00,000 from his wife's father, leading to her alleged suicide. The prosecution alleged cruelty and dowry harassment, but the court found the allegations vague and lacking a proximate link or mens rea for abetment of suicide. Citing Supreme Court and Maharashtra High Court precedents on Sections 306 and 107 of the IPC, the court held that mere harassment without direct instigation does not constitute abetment. Since other co‑accused were released on bail and the trial was pending, the court granted bail to the applicant with conditions.

Issues considered

Whether the facts alleged constitute abetment of suicide under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, read with the definition of abetment in Section 107.
Whether the applicant's continued custody is necessary pending trial.
Whether bail should be granted in view of the nature of the offences and the stage of the proceedings.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 108, 115(2), 3(5), 351(2), 352, 85
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 107, 306

Subjects

bail
abetment of suicide
dowry harassment
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure
Section 108
Section 483
marital dispute

Judgment

35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 600 OF 2026

Kishor Balaso Mane … Applicant
Versus.
The State of Maharashtra & Anr. … Respondents

Mr. Amit Icham with Mr. Tejas Modak for the Applicant.
Dr. A. A. Takalkar, APP for the State.
P. D. Kharat, Head Constable, Phaltan Gramin Police Station
is present.

-------
CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 8, 2026
P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Amit Icham, learned Advocate for the Applicant and

Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the state.

2. By the present Application filed under Section 483 of the

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant seeks Regular

bail in connection with Crime No. 765 of 2025, dated 23 rd November

2025, registered with the Phaltan Rural Police Station, District Satara,

for offences punishable under Sections 108, 85, 115(2), 351(2) and

352, read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

3. Mr. Amit Icham, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that

there are six (6) accused in Crime No. 765 of 2025, with the Applicant

VRJ 1
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

as Accused No. 1. He further states that the investigation in Crime No.

765 of 2025 is complete and that the charge-sheet has been filed before

the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phaltan, under R.C.C.

No. 201 of 2026, and is pending committal.

4. The prosecution case is that the Applicant (Accused No. 1) was

married to Varsha Kishor Mane (deceased). The deceased was treated

with cruelty for non-fulfilment of economic demands made by the

Applicant and his family members. On 14 th November 2025, the

Applicant and his family members insisted that the deceased obtain Rs.

5,00,000/- from her father to enable the Applicant to purchase a tractor.

The non-fulfilment of this demand resulted in harassment, which led

the deceased to commit suicide.

5. The Applicant was arrested on 23 rd November 2025. The

Additional Sessions Judge, Phaltan, rejected the Applicant’s Bail

Application No. 231 of 2025 by order dated 2nd March 2026.

6. Mr. Amit Icham, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that

the allegations against the Applicant are vague. He submits that the

allegations against the Applicant and the other five members of his

family are similar. He submits that Accused Nos. 2 to 6 have been

released on bail/pre-arrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Phaltan. He further submits that the allegations do not make out any

VRJ 2
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

case of abetment or cruelty.

7. Dr. A. A. Takalkar, learned APP for the State, submits that the FIR

indicates that the deceased was treated with cruelty for non-fulfilment

of the dowry demand.

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

9. Perusal of the FIR indicates that the Applicant was married to the

deceased in 2018. They have a minor daughter born out of wedlock. A

dispute appears to have arisen between the Applicant and the deceased

in 2024, as referred to in the FIR. From 2024 till the date mentioned in

the FIR, i.e., 14th November 2025, there does not appear to be any

serious issue between the Applicant and the deceased. The allegation

dated 14th November 2025 is that the Applicant demanded Rs.

5,00,000/- from the father of the deceased for the purchase of a tractor.

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, in the context of

Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (Section 108 of the Bharatiya

Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), has observed as follows:

“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
1
2025 OnLine SC 120

VRJ 3
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

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 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

VRJ 4
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

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 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

VRJ 5
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

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 allegations in the FIR do not suggest that the

VRJ 6
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

demand made on 14th November 2025 drove the deceased to take such

a drastic step. There is no suicide note. At any rate, these issues will

have to be considered at trial. The other accused in Crime No. 765 of

2025, against whom similar allegations have been made, have been

released either on bail or on pre-arrest bail by the Sessions Court. The

Applicant has been in jail since 23 rd November 2025. Although the

investigation is complete, the proceedings are pending committal before

the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Phaltan.

12. In view of the above, the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near

future. Continued custody of the Applicant pending the trial of the case

is not required.

13. In view of the above, Bail Application No. 600 of 2026 is allowed

on the following terms:

(a) The Applicant-Kishor Balaso Mane in Crime No. 765 of

2025, dated 23rd November 2025, registered with Phaltan Gramin

Police Staiton, District Satara, shall be released on bail upon

furnishing a PR bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand

only) with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court.

(b) The Applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, make any

inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

VRJ 7
35 -FIN BA - 600 - 2026.doc

facts of the case to dissuade that person from disclosing the facts

to the Court or any police officer. Applicant shall not tamper with

evidence in any manner.

Phaltan Rural Police Station, District Satara, with his residential

address and proof thereof, his contact number and must inform

the Investigating Officer, of any changes to this information from

time to time.

(d) The applicant shall appear before the Investigating Officer,

Phaltan Rural Police Station, District Satara on every fourth

Monday of each month commencing from 21 st September 2026

till the framing of charge in Crime No. 765 of 2025.

(e) The Applicant shall regularly appear before the Trial Court

upon the case being committed to the Trial Court.

14. The observations made in the present order are prima facie and

are meant to decide the Bail Application and will not have any impact

or effect on the trial.

15. Bail Application No.600 of 2026 is disposed of.

(ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)
Digitally
signed by
VAIBHAV
VAIBHAV RAMESH
RAMESH JADHAV
JADHAV Date:
2026.09.08
20:40:10
+0530

VRJ 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…