Mumbai, March 15, 2024 – The Sessions Court for Greater Bombay has denied bail to Arun Raju Baigar, accused of abetting the suicide of his partner, Pratiba Amol Ohale. Additional Sessions Judge S.B. Pawar, presiding over Court Room No. 58, rejected Baigar’s bail application (Criminal Bail Application No. 584 of 2024), citing suspicious WhatsApp chats, the seriousness of the offense, and the ongoing investigation.

Baigar was arrested in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2024, registered at Shahu Nagar Police Station, for an offense under section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Allegations and FIR:

According to the complainant, Sangeeta Sakharchand Aher, the mother of the deceased, Pratiba Amol Ohale, Pratiba committed suicide on February 22, 2024. Pratiba, who had divorced a year prior, was in a romantic relationship with Baigar and had informed her mother of their intention to marry.

The complainant alleged that Baigar had physical relations with Pratiba under the promise of marriage and had taken ₹8 lakh from her. However, in the 15 days leading up to her death, he avoided contact and refused to return the money or formalize their agreement. This caused Pratiba significant mental distress, ultimately leading to her suicide.

Defense Arguments:

Baigar, through his advocate Ravishankar Dwivedi, argued that he was falsely implicated. He claimed that documents recovered by the investigating officer indicated that he and Pratiba were married. He denied any financial demands or refusals and asserted that the deceased was aggressive. He argued that the offense under section 306 of the IPC was not attracted. He also pointed out the delay in filing the FIR and the absence of eyewitnesses to the alleged money transaction. He cited a Supreme Court judgment (Prabhu v. State) to argue that the elements of abetment of suicide were not met.

Prosecution’s Objections:

The prosecution, represented by APP Sulbha Joshi, opposed the bail application. They argued that the investigation was ongoing, including the recording of the complainant’s statement under section 164 of the CrPC. They raised concerns about Baigar fleeing or influencing witnesses. They argued that despite the marriage documents, the deceased wanted a valid marriage, which Baigar refused. They also pointed to WhatsApp messages exchanged between Baigar and the deceased at the time of the incident.

Court’s Analysis and Decision:

Judge Pawar, after reviewing the FIR, documents, and arguments, made the following observations:

• Marriage Documents: The court acknowledged the existence of documents suggesting a marriage between Baigar and the deceased but noted the prosecution’s claim that the deceased wanted a valid marriage.
• WhatsApp Chats: The court found that WhatsApp chats between Baigar and the deceased, particularly those preceding and during the suicide, were suspicious. The chats indicated a demand for money from the deceased and that the messages sent immediately prior to the suicide were deleted by Baigar.
• Proximity to Suicide: The court noted the close proximity of the WhatsApp conversations and the act of suicide.
• Investigation Stage: The court emphasized that the investigation was at a premature stage.
• Seriousness of Offense: The court considered the offense under section 306 of the IPC to be very serious.
• Prima Facie Material: The court found prima facie material to show Baigar’s involvement in the offense.

Judge Pawar concluded that considering the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the stage of investigation, Baigar could not be admitted to bail.

Order:

The court rejected Baigar’s bail application.

Significance of the Order:

This order highlights the court’s emphasis on:

• The importance of electronic evidence, particularly WhatsApp chats, in investigating abetment of suicide cases.
• The significance of the accused’s conduct and communication with the deceased leading up to the suicide.
• The court’s reluctance to grant bail in serious offenses when the investigation is ongoing.
• The court will look at the facts of each case, and not automatically apply precedents.

This ruling demonstrates the court’s approach in balancing the rights of the accused with the need for a thorough investigation and the seriousness of the offense.