The Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay granted regular bail to Vicky Selvam Naidu, a 24-year-old accused of abetting the suicide of his friend, citing a lack of prima facie evidence for abetment or instigation. Her Honour Additional Sessions Judge Smt. N.S. Shaikh (C.R. No. 39), in an order dated April 30, 2024, in Criminal Bail Application No. 983 of 2024, observed that the essential element of abatement or instigation to the deceased victim is missing from the available record. Mr. Naidu was initially booked under Section 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons) after he allegedly assaulted the victim with a sharp weapon on her forehead, and subsequently charged under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after the victim succumbed to suicide. The case was registered under Crime No. 83 of 2024 at Cuffe Parade Police Station.
The Tragic Sequence of Events and Allegations
The case is built upon the complaint lodged by the victim’s father on April 5, 2024, after his daughter committed suicide by hanging. The father was informed by his wife that the victim had a quarrel with the applicant, Vicky Selvam Naidu, who was her friend. It was alleged that during the quarrel, the applicant had assaulted the victim with a sharp weapon, and the subsequent suicide was a direct result of this quarrel and assault. The victim initially died on April 6, 2024, leading to the addition of the Section 306 charge to the FIR. The applicant, through his counsel Ld. Adv. Shabnam Shaikh, contended that he was falsely implicated. He stated that he and the victim had been in a relationship for six years and that his marriage proposal was opposed by the victim’s family. Crucially, the defense argued that at the time the victim intended to commit suicide, she made a video call to the applicant, who immediately tried to stop her and informed her mother of her intention, demonstrating an effort to prevent the tragedy, not instigate it. The applicant suggested the victim took her life after learning her parents were arranging her marriage.
Judicial Analysis: Missing Element of Abetment
The Sessions Court carefully considered the material on record, including the FIR, remand papers, and even photographs of the victim and the applicant. The prosecution, represented by Ld. APP Jyotsna Gawli, opposed the bail, citing the need to recover the sharp weapon, record statements under Section 164 of CrPC, and the risk of the applicant threatening witnesses due to their shared locality. However, the Court placed greater emphasis on the legal requirements for establishing the grave offense of abetment to suicide. Relying on rulings from the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Courts in similar cases, including the precedent set in Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. The State of Maharashtra, the Sessions Judge determined that the crucial ingredient of instigation or continuous harassment amounting to abetment was prima facie absent. The Court noted that the applicant was arrested on April 5, 2024, and had been in judicial custody since April 13, 2024. With the CCTV footage of the accused’s house and the deceased’s mobile phone already recovered during the investigation, the Court concluded that “no purpose will be served by keeping the accused behind the bar.”
Conditions Imposed for Liberty
The Court ultimately allowed Criminal Bail Application No. 983 of 2024, finding that the prosecution’s apprehension regarding witness tampering could be addressed by imposing stringent conditions. Vicky Selvam Naidu was ordered to be released on executing a P.R. Bond of ₹20,000/- with one or more solvent sureties of the like amount. The conditions imposed were designed to maintain judicial oversight and protect the integrity of the ongoing investigation and eventual trial:
- The accused must attend the concerned police station every second and fourth Wednesday of every month between 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. till the filing of the charge-sheet.
- He is strictly prohibited from tampering with evidence and making any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case.
- He is also mandated to attend the trial on each and every date.
This order is a significant legal development, highlighting the judiciary’s reluctance to keep an accused incarcerated under Section 306 IPC when the evidence suggests a complicated personal relationship rather than direct, intentional instigation, especially after key evidence has been collected by the investigating agency.