::1::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
CNR NO. MHCC02-003910-2022
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI
AT MUMBAI
CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.679 OF 2022
IN
C.R. NO.14 OF 2022
1. Sachin Kishor Mahadik
Age 31 years, Occ: Service
2. Kishor Kamlakar Mahadik
Age 64 years, Occ: Nil,
Both Residing at Matrusmruti,
D/1, S.G. Barve Marg,
Kurla – East, Mumbai.

…Applicants/Accused
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of Chunabhatti Police
Station in C.R. No.14 of 2022)
…Respondent/
Complainant
Appearances:
Advocate Mr. Atul Kakade for the applicants/Accused.
Advocate Mr. Swapnil Ambre for intervener.
APP Karwate for the State/Respondent.
CORAM : H.H.THE ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
SONALI P. AGARWAL (C.R. NO. 41)
DATED : 8th APRIL, 2022.

::2::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
:ORDER:
This is bail application filed by accused under section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”)
for grant of regular bail in connection with Crime No.14/2022 for the
offence punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) registered with
Chunabhatti Police Station.
2.

Heard argument of learned counsel for accused, learned counsel
for intervener and learned APP for the State.
3.

Prosecution has alleged that deceased Shruti was staying with her
husband Yashraj Mahadik and his parents and his grand mother on the
ground floor of Matrusmruti building. It is further alleged that
applicant-accused Kishor Mahadik, his son applicant-accused Sachin
Mahadik and his wife are staying on the first floor of such building. It is
further alleged that there is separate staircase to go on the first floor of
the building. It is further alleged that applicant-accused Kishor Mahadik
is uncle of Yashraj Mahadik. It is further alleged that it is ancestral
property of people staying on the ground floor and first floor. It is
further alleged that in July 2016, mother of Yashraj Mahadik and in
August 2018, his grand mother died. It is further alleged that in July
2020, husband of deceased Yashraj Mahadik and Nandadeep Mahadik
were suffering from Corona and therefore, applicant-accused Kishor
Mahadik and his family closed the door in the corridor and therefore,
there was hot exchange of words between both family. It is further
alleged that Kishor Mahadik again closed that door and family of
Yashraj Mahadik requested to keep the door open but Kishor Mahadik’s
family did not listen and closed the door and that time there was
::3::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
quarrel between the parties and applicant-accused Kishor Mahadik
abused and beat deceased and applicant-accused Sachin Mahadik bite
hand of deceased and therefore, complaint was given to Nehrunagar
Police Station. It is further alleged that on 12.01.2022, when informant
made phone call on father-in-law of deceased, he told her that deceased
and her son are not at home. When informant’s husband went to house
of deceased that time her husband also came home. They found one
chit written by deceased. That time they saw CCTV footage and they
found deceased and their son left home at 2.08 p.m. They searched her
and gave missing complaint to Nehrunagar police station. It is alleged
that on the same day at 2.22 p.m. deceased along with her son Rajveer
committed suicide by jumping from the building Alta Vista Society,
Chembur, Mumbai. It is alleged that as applicant-accused Kishor
Mahadik and her cousin mother-in-law Vidya Mahadik subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty and she is committed suicide and therefore,
FIR came to be lodged.
4.

Applicants-accused have contended that there is family dispute
between both the parties i.e. the house in which they are residing
separately since long and the said house is ancestor property.
Applicants-accused have further contended that the alleged quarrel is
of July 2020, and deceased has committed suicide in January, 2022.
Applicants-accused have further contended that before registration of
FIR in the present matter, husband of deceased found one suicide note
alleged to be written by deceased. But the entire FIR is silent about the
contents of suicide note and subsequently at the time of argument of
earlier Bail Application the intervener through P.P. furnished the xerox
copy of such alleged suicide note. Applicants-accused have further
contended that applicant-accused and Nandadeep Mahadik both are
::4::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
real brothers and they are residing separately from each other since
long due to past family dispute over the family property i.e. the house in
which they are residing. Applicants-accused have further contended that
applicant-accused are residing on the upper floor and the family of
Nandadeep Mahadik is residing on the ground floor along with his son
Yashraj and his deceased wife and hence question of harassment to the
deceased at the hands of applicants-accused is ruled out. Applicantsaccused have further contended that in July 2020, N.C. complaint was
lodged and there is long time gap of more than one and half year
between the said alleged incident which was occurred in July, 2020 and
the deceased committed suicide in January 2022. Applicants-accused
have further contended that there is no N.C. corroborating allegations
of intervener that accused No.3 took bite of hand of deceased and
accused No.1 abused and assaulted deceased. Applicants-accused have
further contended that except alleged incident of July 2020, there is
absolutely no any alleged incident and no any other evidence on record
which can remotely connect applicants-accused with the commission of
alleged offence. Applicants-accused have further contended that chargesheet is filed. Accused No.1 is senior citizen of 64 years old and accused
No.3 is working in a reputed Company and prayed to be released on
bail.
5.

Prosecution has filed reply and stated that complainant and
accused are staying at the same place, therefore, accused may put
pressure on witnesses. Prosecution has further stated that they have
filed charge-sheet against accused. Prosecution has further stated that if
accused are released on bail then they may abscond and not face the
trial and objected the bail application.

::5::
6.

Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
Intervener is husband of deceased who appeared as intervener in
the matter and contended that owing to the grid and hatred possessed
by accused, deceased was pushed to end her life. He has further
contended that the continuous harassment and the torture extended
by the present accused and her family members resulted in her ending
her life with her three year old son. Intervener has further stated that in
July 2016, his mother passed away followed by his grandmother in
August 2018. Intervener has further stated that post the demise of
grand-mother, there was constant strife over the property between the
two families, instigated by desire of accused to gain more share in the
property. Intervener has further contended that family of accused
harassed and mentally tortured deceased in absence of intervener and
his father, as she would be often the only person at home with her three
years old son. Intervener has further contended that deceased has to
face constant squabbles and arguments from family of accused who
used vile and abused her in filthy language and also outraged her
modesty in front of her family and neighbors and therefore she was
constrained to go to police station but instead of FIR only NC was
registered. Intervener has further contended that in July 2020,
intervener and his father tested positive for Covid-19 and thereafter
accused purposefully closed the kitchen door which led to the common
backyard and due to which there was another dispute between both the
families. Intervener has further contended that when family of
intervener requested accused not to close the door but accused refused
their request with intent to disturb peace in the intervener’s family.
Intervener has further contended that accused verbally abused and
assaulted deceased and even bitten her on hand. Intervener has further
contended that deceased on phone calls told them that applicantsaccused were regularly harassing and mentally torturing her. Intervener
::6::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
has further contended that on 12.01.2022, when informant made phone
call on father-in-law of deceased, he told her that deceased and her son
are not at home. When informant’s husband went to house of deceased
that time her husband also came home and found one chit written by
deceased. Thy saw C.C.T.V. footage and found that deceased and their
son left home at 2.08 p.m. They searched her and gave missing
complaint. Intervener has further contended that on the same day
deceased has committed suicide. Intervener has further contended that
there is reference of names of applicants-accused in the suicide note
written by deceased. Intervener has further contended that from suicide
note it can be gathered that deceased had no grievance against her
husband and father-in-law with whom she was staying and objected the
bail application.
7.

It is not disputed by both the parties that deceased, her husband
and her father-in-law were staying on the ground floor and applicantsaccused were staying on the first floor of the same building. It is also
not disputed by both the parties that there was dispute over property
between both the parties. Both parties have not denied their
relationship with each other.
8.

Prosecution has contended in FIR that in July 2020, husband and
father-in-law of deceased were tested Corona positive and therefore,
applicant-accused Kishor Mahadik and his family closed one door and
therefore, there was dispute between both the parties. Intervener has
stated that due to such quarrel N.C. No.1000/2021 was filed. He has
produced copy of such N.C. in which it is stated that deceased and her
husband were abused and beaten by hand by applicant. It appears, copy
of one more N.C. is produced of March 2019 given by deceased against
::7::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
other co-accused Vidhya Kishor Mahadik alleging that she abused and
scuffled with her. Learned counsel for accused has stated that the
alleged quarrel has taken place much before suicide by deceased.
Deceased has committed suicide in January 2022. Prosecution alleges
that the incident of abuses and bite on hand of deceased was taken
place immediately or before six months of the incident. Hence, it
appears, there is no complaint filed for any quarrel immediately prior to
alleged
incident
of
suicide
by
deceased.

Considering
these
circumstances, prima faciely there appears some substance in the
contention of accused that only such alleged one single incident of
quarrel cannot be said to be an instigation to commit suicide. Intervener
has contended that family of applicants-accused were harassing
deceased continuously and therefore, she has committed suicide. It
appears, in the suicide note there is reference of names of applicant’s
family mentioning that they have done this. But learned counsel for
accused has also pointed out that deceased was under depression for
many days and was under medication due to family situation. The
alleged suicide note also states that she was under depression. Yet trial
has not started and evidence is not led. Considering the fact that in the
suicide note it is stated that deceased was under medication for her
depression and also as per contention of intervener she used to be alone
at home with her son, a possibility is raised that deceased was in a
peculiar depression condition. It is a matter of trial whether only
accused were responsible for her such depression and whether they
were harassing her with intention that she commits suicide. It is a
matter of trial whether conduct of accused can be levelled as sufficient
and enough to cause a normal person instigation to commit suicide.
Therefore, such issue can be decided only after evidence is led. But at
this prima facie stage considering the fact that there is reference of
::8::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
names of applicants-accused in the suicide note clearly mentioned, it
can be said that there is prima facie case against accused. But accused
have raised triable issue and there is some substance in the defence that
the conduct of accused were not sufficient for any normal lady to
commit suicide.
9.

Learned counsel for accused has contended that the signature on
the suicide note does not match with signature of deceased on the N.C.
filed by her. He has further contended that the intervener has found
suicide note immediately on 12.01.2022 still there is no mention of
contents of suicide note in the FIR. Learned counsel for accused has also
stated that in the panchnama of seizing such note it is stated that it was
submitted to the Nehrunagar police station on 12.01.2022 but it is
seized on 12.02.2022. Learned counsel for accused has contended that
the suicide note is fabricated one and created with intention to falsely
implicate in this case. Considering such contentions and circumstances,
a possibility cannot be fully ruled out that the conduct of accused is not
sufficient to be called an instigation to commit suicide by a normal
person.
10.

As discussed above, it is a matter of trial whether accused
harassed deceased with intention that she commits suicide and whether
the conduct and harassment by accused was sufficient instigation or
abetment to cause deceased to commit suicide. One applicant-accused is
64 years old. There are no criminal antecedents of both accused brought
on record. Learned counsel for intervener has stated that condition be
put on accused not to enter into the building where husband of
deceased stays. Learned counsel for accused has stated that in the same
building on upper floor family of accused stays and on the ground floor
::9::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
family of husband of deceased stays. He has further stated that there is
family dispute between both the parties for same building i.e. their
ancestral property. Learned counsel for accused has stated that where
accused will go if they are not allowed to enter in their house and they
are falsely implicated in this case. There is nothing to show that both
accused are habitual offender. One of them is 64 years old. Hence,
considering the fact that both the parties are relative of each other
having ancestral property in which they both residing and having
dispute and other circumstances it will not be proper to put condition
on accused not to enter into his own house as it will severely affect their
arrangement to stay but directions can be given to them not to threaten
informant and other witnesses. Hence, it will be proper to release them
on bail on some grounds. Hence, pass following order:
ORDER
1.

Criminal Bail Application No.679 of 2022 is allowed.

2.

Accused viz. 1) Sachin Kishor Mahadik and 2) Kishor Kamlakar
Mahadik be released on bail on their furnishing PB and SB of
Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) each with one or
more
surety/sureties
in
the
like
amount
each,
in
C.R.No.14/2022 for the offence punishable under Section 306
r/w 34 of IPC registered with Chunabhatti Police Station on the
following conditions:
(i) Both accused are directed not to threaten or cause injury to
informant.
(ii) Both accused are directed not to tamper with prosecution
evidence.
(iii) Both accused shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
::10::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts
to the court or any police officer.
(iv) Both accused shall furnish their mobile numbers, phone
numbers & their all addresses including permanent, temporary
and postal to the Investigating Officer and in case of change or
discontinue with the mobile numbers provided to Investigating
Officer will inform new mobile number to Investigating Officer
till the conclusion of the trial. Investigating Officer to submit such
addresses and phone and mobile numbers to the Court.
3.

Criminal Bail Application No.679 of 2022 stands disposed of
accordingly.

Dt. 08.04.2022
Dictated on
Transcribed on
Signed on
(SONALI P. AGARWAL)
Additional Sessions Judge,
Gr. Bombay
: 08.04.2022
: 08.04.2022
: 08.04.2022
::11::
Criminal Bail Application No.679/2022
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER
28/04/2022 at 11.22 a.m.
UPLOADED DATE AND TIME
Subhash Sukhdeo Poul
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court H.H.J. Sonali P. Agarwal
Room No.
Room No.41)
Date
of
Pronouncement
Judgment/Order
of 08/04/2022
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.on
08/04/2022
Judgment/Order uploaded on
28/04/2022
(Court