Allowed

Pawan Didwania and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Dec 2020BA/1093/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment grants bail to two female applicants charged with abetment to suicide. The High Court held that leaving the matrimonial home after seven months did not constitute abetment under Section 107 IPC. Bail was granted on personal bonds with conditions to leave the respondent's locality and provide sureties within three months.

What did the court decide?

Applicants granted bail on personal bonds of Rs. 25,000 with one or two sureties in like amount, to be furnished within three months, with conditions to leave the informant's locality.

Pawan Didwania and Ors. Vs the State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶2

 : 1 :

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1093 OF 2020

¶5

1. Pawan Didwania
2. Vandana Agarwal
3. Anusuya Agarwal.... Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 7074 OF 2020

¶6

Narendra Motilal Poddar …. Intervenor
In the matter between:
Pawan Didwania & Ors..... Applicants
 Versus
The State of Maharashtra.... Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ashok Mundargi, Sr. Advocate i/b. Shreyansh R. Mithare for
Applicants.

¶8

Mr. A. M. Saraogi, for Intervenor.

¶9

Mr. Deepak Thakare, PP a/w. Mr. Swapnil S. Pednekar, APP for
State/Respondent.

¶10

CORAM:SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE:18th DECEMBER, 2020

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

1.The Applicants are seeking their release on bail in

¶13

connection with C.R.No. 1143 of 2020 registered at Samata Nagar

¶14

Digitally signed by Pradeepkumar Pradeepkumar P. Deshmane P. Deshmane Date: Gokhale 2020.12.21 15:37:01 +0530

¶15

1 of 12

¶16

 : 2 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶17

police station, on 23/09/2020, under section 306 r/w. 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).

¶18

2.Heard Shri. Ashok Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel
for the applicants, Shri. Deepak Thakare, learned Public Prosecutor
for the State and Shri. Saraogi, learned counsel for the original
first informant.

¶19

3.At the outset, learned P.P. makes a statement that the
investigation is over and the charge-sheet will be filed within a
period seven days from today. The statement is accepted. In view
of this statement, the learned senior counsel for the applicants
stated that he was not pressing the application of the applicant
No.1 Pawan Didwania, at this stage. He sought liberty to approach
the court of sessions for his release on bail, after the charge-sheet
is filed.

¶20

4.Permission is granted. The application in respect of
applicant No.1 is allowed to be withdrawn with such liberty.

¶21

2 of 12

¶22

 : 3 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶23

5.I am considering this application for bail in respect of

¶24

Applicant Nos.2 and 3.

¶25

6.The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.’) is
lodged by the first informant on 23/09/2020. The F.I.R. is lodged
in respect of commission of suicide by his son. His son had got
married with the applicant No.2 on 22/01/2019. The applicant
No.2 was residing in her matrimonial house with the deceased,
the first informant and his wife. The F.I.R. mentions that, applicant
no.2 was working in a bank. She used to return home very late.
She used to give different excuses for coming late. There used to
be frequent quarrels between the informant’s son and the applicant

¶26

No.2. It is alleged that the applicant No.2 used to taunt the
informant’s son that he was physically weak and he was not
intelligent. The informant’s son shared his private circumstances
with the informant and the informant’s wife. The F.I.R. makes
allegation that the marriage between the informant’s son and
applicant No.2 was not consummated. The applicant No.2 kept
him away from her.

¶27

3 of 12

¶28

 : 4 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶29

7.On 03/12/2019 the applicant No.2 left her

¶30

matrimonial house and went to reside at her parental home. It is
mentioned in the F.I.R. that, the informant’s son was disturbed
because the applicant No.2 avoided him and used to taunt him.
His depression became worse. It is mentioned in the F.I.R. that, the
informant’s son and the applicant No.2 used to speak on phone.
The applicant No.2 wanted divorce. The original applicant No.1
was her uncle. The deceased was defamed through false
statements. Such lies were spread among the acquaintances and
common friends of both the families. It is alleged that the
applicant No.1 used to threaten the informant and his family that
they would be put in jail on some allegations. In the month of
March, 2020 the applicant No.2 along with applicant No.1 and her
brother came to the informant’s house and took away her articles.

¶31

8.On 27/06/2020 the applicant No.1 demanded money
by threatening the informant that, he would see to it that the
informant and his family would go to jail. In the month of July,
2020 the informant paid Rs.12,50,000/- to the applicant No.1. The

¶32

4 of 12

¶33

 : 5 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶34

informant’s son came to know about it and he went deeper into his
depression. It is alleged that the applicant No.3 also used to insult
and humiliate informant’s son on similar allegations.

¶35

9.On 25/07/2020, the informant’s son committed suicide

¶36

by sitting in his car and by opening a can of poisonous gas i.e.
Carbon monoxide. On this basis, the F.I.R. is lodged.

¶37

Submissions:

¶38

10.The learned senior counsel submitted that the

¶39

applicant No.2 was residing separately since 03/12/2019 and,
therefore, she had no connection with the suicide committed by
the informant’s son on 24/07/2020. According to him, the fact
that she had started living separately cannot amount to abetment
to commission of suicide. He submitted that the incident of suicide
had taken place on 24/07/2020 and the F.I.R. was lodged
belatedly on 23/09/2020. He submitted that the F.I.R. is lodged as
an afterthought only to implicate the applicants. He submitted
that, all the applicants were arrested on 01/11/2020 and as
pointed out by the learned PP the investigation is already over,

¶40

5 of 12

¶41

 : 6 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶42

therefore, further custody of the applicants is not necessary. He
invited my attention to a message sent by the deceased a couple of
days prior to committing suicide, wherein, he had expressed his
love for the applicant no.2 but had also expressed that he was
going to end his life. He submitted that, even this message does
not show that the deceased had real grievance against the
applicant No.2. He submitted that, apart from a few vague
allegations there is no material against the applicant No.3.

¶43

11.Shri. Saraogi, learned counsel for the intervenor
submitted that the message sent by the deceased shows that he
was going to end his life and yet applicant No.2 did not take any
step of informing the informant, so that, his life could have been
saved. He submitted that, there is no delay in registering of F.I.R.
The informant was constantly pursuing the matter for registering
the F.I.R. but the police did not pay any attention. Therefore, the
informant had to approach this court by filing a Writ Petition for
lodging of F.I.R. That Writ Petition was filed on 15/09/2020 and
only thereafter this F.I.R. was lodged. Therefore, the informant

¶44

6 of 12

¶45

 : 7 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶46

cannot be faulted with for late lodging of F.I.R. He submitted that
the entire behaviour and actions of the applicant Nos.2 and 3,
amount to abetment to commission of suicide.

¶47

12.The learned Public Prosecutor produced panchanama
dated 25/09/2020 before me which contains the transcript of an
audio clip recorded in the voice of the deceased. In that audio clip
the deceased had blamed both the applicants. Apart from that, a
message was sent saying that the applicant No.1 was spreading
rumors against him and was pressuring him in signing divorce
papers by threatening to implicate the deceased and his family
U/s.498A of the IPC. He, therefore, submitted that, all these acts
have contributed to the deceased committing suicide which would
amount to abetment to commission of suicide.

¶48

Reasons:

¶49

13.I have considered these submissions. The marriage
between the informant’s son and the applicant no.2 had taken
place on 22/01/2019. The F.I.R. mentions that the relations

¶50

7 of 12

¶51

 : 8 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶52

between the couple were never cordial and ultimately she left the
house on 03/12/2019. There is a gap of atleast 7 months between
applicant No.2 leaving the matrimonial house and commission of
suicide by the deceased. The F.I.R. does mention that, since the
applicant No.2 left the matrimonial house, the deceased went into
depression. His situation became worse day by day. His depression
could be a cause of his committing suicide. The act of the applicant
No.2 leaving her matrimonial house cannot amount to ‘abetment’
as defined U/s.107 of IPC. Admittedly, the applicant No.2 was
residing separately from the deceased and his family.

¶53

14.I have given serious consideration to the message sent
by the deceased to the applicant No.2, a couple of days prior to his
committing suicide. In that message, he had indicated his intention
of committing suicide. While it is true, that the applicant No.2
could have contacted his parents and perhaps this unfortunate
circumstance could have been avoided; but looking from her
perspective, it appears that, she did not want to have any relations
with the deceased. As submitted by Shri. Mundargi, the applicant

¶54

8 of 12

¶55

 : 9 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶56

No.2 could be feeling that such messages were causing harassment
to her instead. This incident is unfortunate, but it is difficult to
observe that the role of the applicant No.2 would fall within the
meaning of abetment as defined under section 107 of IPC.

¶57

15.There are hardly any allegations against the applicant
No.3 except that she used to humiliate the deceased whenever the
deceased went to their house. Certain allegations are directed
against the applicant No.1, particularly in respect of issuing
threats. But since his application is withdrawn I am not
commenting any further in that behalf, at this stage. This would be
the matter which can be addressed to by an appropriate court at
an appropriate stage.

¶58

16.Though, the learned public prosecutor has relied on

¶59

the audio clip blaming the applicant Nos.2 and 3, it is obvious that
the deceased was extremely unhappy with all the applicants as the
applicant No.2 had left him. Therefore, his anger directed against
these applicants is also understandable. At this stage, there is

¶60

9 of 12

¶61

 : 10 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶62

considerable force in the submission of Shri. Mundargi that the
section 306 of IPC may not be applicable against the applicant
Nos.2 and 3.

¶63

17.All these observations are made strictly for deciding
this application for bail. The trial court at the appropriate stage,
shall not, in any manner, be influenced by any of these
observations.

¶64

18.As stated by the learned public prosecutor,
investigation is over and the charge-sheet will be filed shortly. In
this view of the matter, I do not think further custody of the
present applicants, who are ladies, is warranted. The applicants do
not have criminal antecedents. The applicant Nos.2 and 3 can be
granted bail on certain conditions.

¶65

19.Hence, the following order :

¶66

ORDER

¶67

(i)The applicant No.1 is permitted to withdraw his
application with liberty to approach the court of

¶68

10 of 12

¶69

 : 11 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶70

sessions for his release on bail after filing of the
charge-sheet.

¶71

(ii)In connection with C.R.No. 1143 of 2020 registered
at Samata Nagar police station, the applicant Nos.2
and 3 are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing PR bonds in the sum of Rs.25,000/-each
(Rupees Twenty Five Thousand each Only) with
one or two sureties each in the like amount.

¶72

(iii) Looking at the prevailing circumstances, it may not be possible for the applicant Nos.2 and 3 to furnish sureties immediately. Therefore, initially the applicants are permitted to furnish cash bail each for the same amount. The applicants will have to furnish the sureties, as directed, within three months from today.

¶73

(iv) The applicant Nos.2 and 3 shall not visit the locality where the informant is residing and they shall not try to tamper with the evidence or witnesses.

¶74

(v) Application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶75

11 of 12

¶76

 : 12 : 20-ba-1093-20.odt

¶77

(vi) In view of disposal of B.A.No.1093 of 2020, the I.A. (ST) No.7074 of 2020 does not survive. It is also disposed of accordingly.

¶78

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

¶79

12 of 12

Pawan Didwania and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pawan Didwania and Ors. 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

Ganesh Ashok Pathare @ Pathade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sunil Harishchandra Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Pawandeep Sing S/O Mahendra Kohli Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alpesh K. Ajmera Vs the State of Maharashtra

Anil Jaygopal Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Devendra S/O Baburao Jagtap Vs the State of Maharashtra