Allowed

Mukesh Dipchand Jain v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC2 Feb 2015BA/66/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered bail applications filed by accused persons charged with abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC following the deceased's death by hanging after alleged loan default. The court held that demanding loan repayment is highly debatable as abetment and allowed bail.

What did the court decide?

Applications allowed; accused released on bail upon furnishing PR Bond of Rs. 30,000 with sureties and undertaking conditions.

Mukesh Dipchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra — Cheating and Forgery | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

19-ba-66-2015 @

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

BAIL APPLICATION NO.66 OF 2015

¶4

Mukesh Dipchand Jain ...Applicant
vs.
State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶5

Mr. Mobin Solkar a/w. Tahera Qureshi, Advocate
for the Applicant.
Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for the State.

¶6

AND

¶7

BAIL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2015

¶8

Nilesh Sarjuprasad Mali ...Applicant

¶9

vs.

¶10

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶11

Mr. M.P. Dalvi, Advocate for the Applicant.
Ms. A.T. Javeri, APP for the State.

¶12

AND

¶13

BAIL APPLICATION NO.80 OF 2015

¶14

Girdhar Sagar and Another ...Applicants

¶15

vs.

¶16

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶17

Mr. Mobin Solkar h/f. N.P. Dalvi, Advocate for
the Applicants.

¶18

Ms. A.T. Javeri, APP for the State.

1/5

Vishal

19-ba-66-2015 @

CORAM : P.D. KODE, J.

¶23

DATE : FEBRUARY 02, 2015

¶24

P.C.

¶25

. By these applications respectively accused
No. 1, 5 and 3 in charge sheet submitted by Mahim
police station against them and one more accused
for commission of offence punishable under Section
306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, has prayed
for bail.

¶26

2.The said police station has accordingly
charge sheeted the said accused upon the F.I.R.
lodged by one Saraswati, wife of the deceased Gopal
Mali on 27-07-2014 regarding her husband Gopal

¶27

having committed suicide on 23-07-2013 i.e. about a
year prior to lodging of F.I.R. by hanging himself
in hotel Mahim Palace at Mahim.

¶28

3.In nutshell, it is her case that her

¶29

husband had taken loans from all the charge sheeted
accused and one more person and they were behind

2/5

Vishal

19-ba-66-2015 @

him for repayment. Her husband was not able to pay
back the loans due to high interest rate and
ultimately he committed suicide and said act of the
applicant and other co-accused threatening him for
repayment of loan had abetted his commission of
suicide.

¶34

4.The learned APP opposed the application on
the count that the material collected during the
investigation having revealed of their being a
nexus in between the deceased committing suicide

¶35

and demand of repayment of loan advanced by the
applicants. It is submitted that prior suicide note
to such effect has been collected supporting such

¶36

inference. It is thus submitted that one life
having been lost due to such activity on the part
of the applicants, they are not entitled for bail.

¶37

5.The learned counsel for the applicants

¶38

press the prayer for bail on the count that it is
highly debatable that legitimate demand for return

3/5

Vishal

19-ba-66-2015 @

of loan can be said to be an act amounting to an
abetment of commission of such suicide. It is
alternatively submitted that at any rate the
offence is not exclusively punishable with
imprisonment for life and the applicants are having
no antecedents and the investigation in crime is
complete, the prayer be leniently considered.

¶43

6.Though the perusal of the charge sheet

¶44

undoubtedly reveals of the deceased having died due
to commission of suicide and earlier himself having
prepared suicide note about a year back implicating
the applicants and others, still it appears highly
debatable whether the legitimate demand for return
of money can always be construed as an act of
abetment for commission of suicide on such count.
Having regard to it and the investigation being

¶45

complete, there being no proximity of time in
between earlier suicidal note and the date of

¶46

commission of suicide, the offence being not
exclusively punishable with imprisonment for life,

4/5

Vishal

19-ba-66-2015 @

deserves discretion to be exercised in favour of
grant of bail.

¶51

7. Resultantly, the application is allowed.

¶52

8.Each of the applicant is hereby directed

¶53

to be released on bail upon furnishing P.R. Bond in
sum of Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty Thousand) with one or
more sureties to make up like amount and subject to

¶54

the conditions that they shall stay at the
addresses mentioned in the applications and shall
attend the investigating officer as and when
summoned by him and not to indulge in any activity
of tampering the prosecution evidence and/or not
indulging in any activity of coercing, threatening
and pressuring the prosecution witnesses.

¶55

Applications stands disposed of.

¶56

5/5

¶57

Vishal

Mukesh Dipchand Jain v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Dipchand Jain v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramraj Gorakh Gupta Vs Sachin Santaram Sonawane and Ors.

Vijay Laxman Chaugule Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban Krishna Bhoir and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Jayshreeprasad Jagadu Gautam and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Girdhar Sagar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Nilesh Sarjuprasad Mali Vs the State of Maharashtra