..1..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
Order Below Exh.1 in Cri.Bail Appln.No.521/2022
CNR No.MHNS010020452022
Shailesh Ramesh Yeole & two others Vs. State.
Heard:
1.

Ld. Adv. Mr. S. V. Bhate for the applicants/
accused.
Ld. A.P.P. Ms. S. S. Sangle for the State.
I. O. present along with the case diary.

This is an application under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure in Crime No.48/2022 registered at Police
station, Abhona, Dist. Nashik for the offence punishable under
Sections 306 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It is the case
of prosecution in brief that the accused/applicants (husband and
in­laws of the deceased) inflicted mental cruelty on her due to
which she committed suicide. It is inter­alia alleged that soon
after the wedding, the husband of the deceased told her that he
is a follower of ISKCON and that he got married only to appease
his family members and that he has no interest in marriage.
2.

Ld. Adv. for the applicants has submitted that the
contentions in the FIR are made­up and not correct. The truth is
that the victim cut (tore) the bridal dress of her sister­in­law
who was to be married in Nashik. The applicants reside in
Chalisgaon and had come to Nashik for getting their
daughter/sister married. However, due to the said act of the
..2..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
deceased, they were gravely inconvenienced and a new bridal
dress had to be purchased for the bride. Later, the deceased
confessed to having done the said negative act. Due to the said
reason, the applicants asked her to go to her maternal home.
After going to her maternal home, the deceased relentlessly tried
to strike a dialogue with the applicants, however, but to no
avail. Ld. Adv. for the applicants has annexed a print­out of
various whats­app messages (running into several pages) which
clearly indicate that the deceased was apologetic about her
behavior and wanted to speak with the applicants and reside
with them. A certificate under Sec. 65­B of the Indian Evidence
Act has also been annexed along with the said print­outs. Ld.
Adv. for the applicants has submitted that the said messages
where the deceased has profusely apologized to the applicants
for her wrong­doing clearly indicate that it was the deceased
who was on the wrong. The applicants, however, wanted to
speak only through a mediator. Applicants are ready to abide by
the terms and conditions imposed by the court. They should
therefore be released on bail.
3.

In order to buttress his contentions further, he has
relied on the following citations :
(i) Anil KR Sarkar V/s State of West Bengal, Laws
(CAL) 2009 7 51. In this matter, it has been inter­
alia held that in order to find a person guilty of the
offence under Sec. 306 of the IPC one of the
..3..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
ingredients is that the accused should have abetted
the commission of suicide.
(ii) In an unreported judgment of the Apex Court dated
01­05­2022 in Criminal Appeal No. 572 of 2002
(arising out of SLP (crl.) No. 6656 of 2001) Sanju
@ Sanjay Singh Sengar V/s State of Madhya
Pradesh, FIR under Sec. 306 of the IPC was quashed
by the Apex Court wherein the deceased had
committed suicide on the third day of quarrel
between accused and his sister’s husband. Accused
had told the deceased to go and die and deceased
committed suicide on third day of the quarrel. It was
held that there was enough time for deceased to
think over and reflect and that it cannot be held that
the suicide was the direct result of the quarrel.
(iii) In an unreported judgment of the Apex Court dated
05­01­2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1301 of 2002
(Gangula Mohan Reddy V/s State of Andhra
Pradesh), wherein a servant had committed suicide
after his employer leveled allegations of theft against
him, it was held that the accused was not guilty of
the offence of abetment and that the deceased was
hypersensitive to ordinary discord and differences
which happen in day­to­day life.
4.

Per contra, Ld. A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the
..4..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
bail application on the ground that there is prima­facie case
against the applicants. A suicide note was found on the person
of the deceased which has been sent to the handwriting expert.
Investigation is in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be filed. If
the applicants are released on bail, there are chances of their
tampering with prosecution witnesses. Moreover, even as per
the print­outs of the messages filed by the applicants, the
applicants are guilty of having abetted the suicide of the victim
in as much as in all these messages, the victim can be seen
pleading with the accused to give her an audience and to take
her back into the family. However, the accused persons have
been absolutely unmoved, heartless and ruthless in their
approach. They refused to meet her and take her back into the
family due to which she committed suicide. The I. O. will now
have to investigate from this aspect as well. Offence is serious in
nature. The citations relied on by the Learned Advocate for the
Applicants are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4.

I have heard both the Ld. Advocates at length and
have perused the entire material on record perusal of which
reveals prima­facie case against the applicants. Offence is serious
in nature wherein a young girl has committed suicide. Perusal of
the whats­app messages annexed by the Ld. Adv. for the
applicants along with the Sec. 65­B, I. E. A. certificate depict a
heart­rending account of how the deceased has pleaded and
begged the applicants to forgive her, speak to her and take her
..5..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
back into the family. In these messages she has told her father­
in­law that he should consider her to be his daughter and
forgive her for her mistake. In one of the messages she has also
stated that “Yesterday she got a suicidal thought since there is
no headway in her efforts for sorting out the issue. However, she
thought of giving a last try of trying to speak to the applicants.”
She has also repeatedly and literally begged the applicants for
her life. However, there was no response to these messages. In
the print­outs of several pages of these messages, there is only
one response from the applicant No. 2 that the pre­condition for
the meeting is that the deceased should inform him about who
else was involved with her in the wrong­doing. In response to
the said message, the deceased had mentioned that no one else
is involved with her.

However, thereafter, there was no
response from applicant No.2. In these messages she has also
clearly stated that she has tried to reach out to her husband
Shailesh and that he has also refused to meet her.

In a
patriarchal set­up, especially the one to which the deceased
belonged, it appears that her being forgiven by her in­laws and
her being accepted into the household, had become the be­all
and end­all of her existence.
5.

The citations relied on by the Learned Advocate for
the applicants are not applicable to the facts of the present case
at this stage, in as much as these matters were either for
quashing of FIR or those where the trial had concluded (i.e.

..6..

Cri.B.Appln.No. 521 of 2022
(Bail Order Exh.1)
these judgments were either after the conclusion of investigation
or after the conclusion of trial). However, in the case at hand,
investigation is still in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be
filed. Therefore, unless the Investigating Agency completes the
investigation, clear picture will not be available before the
Court. Investigation is in progress and charge­sheet is yet to be
filed. Therefore, apprehension of the Ld. A.P.P. that if the
applicants are released on bail, there are chances of their
tampering with prosecution witnesses is also well­founded. In
view of the forgoing discussion, I am inclined to reject the
application.
ORDER
Application is hereby rejected.
MRIDULA
BHATIA
Nashik
26/05/2022
Digitally signed
by MRIDULA
BHATIA
Date:
2022.05.26
17:49:41
+0530
Mridula Bhatia
District Judge­2 and
Addl. Sessions Judge,
Nashik.