1
Cri BA No.584-2024
MHCC020036132024
IN THE COURT OF SESSION FOR GREATER BOMBAY
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.584 OF 2024
Arun Raju Baigar,
Age: 29 Years, Occ: Service.

]
] …Applicant.

Versus
The State of Maharashtra
]
(At the instance of Shahu Nagar Police Station ]
Vide FIR No.54 of 2024)
] …Respondent.
Advocate Ravishankar Dwivedi for applicant /accused.
APP Sulbha Joshi for the State.
CORAM :
SHRI. S. B. PAWAR,
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE (C.R. No.58)
DATE
:
07th MARCH, 2024.
ORDER
Applicant, who is in custody in connection with FIR No.54
of 2024 registered with Shahu Nagar Police Station for offene under
section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has filed present application for
regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2.

The FIR is registered on the basis of complaint filed by
Sangeeta Sakharchand Aher, who is mother of deceased Pratiba Amol
Ohale. The deceased Pratiba had married in the year 2011-12. She
committed suicide in the early morning on 22.02.2024 in her house. It
is alleged that she had taken divorce, one year prior to the incident.

2
Cri BA No.584-2024
She was in love relationship with the applicant and had informed the
first informant that they were going to marry. It is further alleged that
the applicant used to keep physical relations with the deceased Pratiba
on the promise of marriage and had taken Rs.8 lakhs from her.
However, since last 15 days, he was avoiding to talk with her and was
not repaying the amount or was not executing any agreement in respect
of the amount. Therefore, she was in depression and under mental
stress. Ultimately, she committed suicide in her house on 22.02.2024
between 4.00 a.m. to 5.00 a.m.
3.

The applicant contends that he has not committed any
offence. He is arrested on 22.02.2024 when he was present in hospital
for the formalities. Investigating officer has recovered documents to
show that the applicant and deceased Pratiba had married.

The
allegations in the FIR are false and baseless. The applicant is working
with Axis Bank. There was no communication in any form to show that
deceased demanded the money to applicant or applicant refused to
return the money. The parents of the applicant are senior citizens and
therefore, he could not leave them alone for residing with the deceased.
He never put any pressure or made any false promise to the deceased.
The deceased was aggressive. The offence under section 306 of IPC is
not attracted. Accordingly, learned Advocate for the applicant made
submissions in the line of above contentions. He further argued that
the incident had taken place from 4.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. but the report
is filed at about 11.45 p.m., after a huge gap. There is no eye-witness
to the money transaction. The applicant was on duty at the time of
incident. The documents of marriage are recovered which show that
the applicant had married with the deceased, and therefore there was
no question of any false promise of marriage.

By relying upon the
3
Cri BA No.584-2024
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhu V/s. The State Rep
By The Inspector of Police and Anr., SLP (Crl.) Diary No.39981 of 2022,
he submits that the offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
is not attracted and urged that the applicant be released on bail.
4.

Prosecution opposed the bail on the grounds that statement
of first informant is to be recorded under section 164 of Cr.P.C., there is
possibility that applicant may flee and may pressurize informant and
witnesses if released on bail.

The offence is serious.

submitted that investigation is in progress.

Learned APP
Though there are
documents regarding marriage, the deceased was insisting for valid
marriage. However, there was no response from the applicant. There
were WhatsApp messages between the applicant and the deceased at
the time of incident.

Learned APP submits that the offence is very
serious in nature and as the investigation is still not complete, the
applicant can not be admitted to bail.
5.
parties.

I have carefully considered oral submissions of both the
Perused the FIR and the documents annexed with the
application. I have gone through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Prabhu V/s. The State Rep By The Inspector of Police and Anr.
In the above judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court laid down the principles
relating to offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code as under:
10.
On a perusal of the above, and relying upon this
Court’s previous judgments discussing the elements of
Section 306 of IPC, the following principles emerge:
10.1
Where the words uttered are casual in nature
and which are often employed in the heat of the moment
between quarrelling people, and nothing serious is
expected to follow from the same, the same would not
amount to abetment of suicide. [Swami Prahaladdas v.

4
Cri BA No.584-2024
State of M.P 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 438, Paragraph 3; Sanjy v.
State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371, Paragraph 12].
10.2
In order to constitute ‘instigation’, it must be
shown that 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. The words uttered by the accused must be
suggestive of the consequence (Ramesh Kumar v. State of
Chhatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, Paragraph 20].
10.3
Different individuals in the same situation react
and behave differently because of the personal meaning
they add to each event, thus accounting for individual
vulnerability to suicide. [Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State
(Government of NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605,
Paragraph 20].
10.4
There must be direct or indirect acts of
incitement to the commission of suicide. The accused must
be shown to have played an active role by an act of
instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the
commission of suicide [Amalendu Pal v. State of West
Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Paragraph 12-14].
10.5
The accused must have intended or known that
the deceased would commit suicide because of his actions
or omissions [Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat
(2010) 8 SCC 628].
6.

As regards the allegation in the FIR that the applicant had
promised the deceased to marry and had established physical relations
is concerned, the documents annexed with the application consisting of
receipt dated 21.12.2023 of Shree Vishweshwar Mandir, the agreement
of marriage of the same day and photographs prima facie indicate that
applicant and deceased had married. The prosecution claims that
despite of the said documents, the applicant had refused to provide
5
Cri BA No.584-2024
status of a valid marriage to the deceased. The said fact is under
investigation at this stage.
7.

I have gone through the WhatsApp chats between the
deceased and the applicant collected by the investigating agency. Those
chats indicate that literally for the whole night, preceding to the
incident and during occurrence of the incident also, the applicant and
the deceased were continuously engaged in WhatsApp chats. The
suicide is committed during the exchange of chats between the
applicant and the deceased. The messages exchanged immediately prior
to and during incident appear to be deleted by the applicant.
8.

In the earlier WhatsApp chats of the same night, there is
reference to demand of money (Rs.8,00,000) made by the deceased to
the applicant. The said conversation prima facie reflects that relation
between them was not as projected by the applicant. Further his act of
deleting messages exchanged at the time of actual incident is
suspicious. There is close proximity of WhatsApp conversation between
the applicant and deceased and the act of committing suicide by the
deceased. The investigation is at a pre-mature stage. There is prima
facie material to show involvement of the applicant in the offence under
section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

The offence is very serious.

Looking into the seriousness and gravity of the offence and the stage of
investigation, in my view, applicant can not be admitted to bail.
Therefore, following order is passed:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.584 of 2024 filed by the applicant
Arun Raju Baigar in connection with FIR No.54 of 2024 registered with
6
Cri BA No.584-2024
Shahu Nagar Police Station for offence under section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code, is rejected.
2.

Criminal Bail Application No.584 of 2024 is disposed off
accordingly.

Date : 07/03/2024
(S.B. PAWAR)
Additional Sessions Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr. Bombay
Order Dictated on: 07/03/2024
Transcribed on : 12/03/2024
Checked on
: 15/03/2024
Signed on
: 15/03/2024
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date
15.03.2024
Upload Time
2.29 p.m.

Name of Stenographer
ARUN ANNAMALAI MUDALIYAR
Name of the Judge (With Court SHRI. S.B. PAWAR (CR 58)
Room No.)
THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE
Date
of
Pronouncement
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
of 07.03.2024
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by 15.03.2024
P.O. on
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded 15.03.2024
on