Allowed

Kishore Madanlal Jaiswal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Jan 2021ABA/367/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge allowed an anticipatory bail application filed by two brothers apprehending arrest for offences of abetment to suicide and harassment under the IPC, granting bail subject to personal recognizance and undertaking to cooperate with police.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; applicants released on bail on personal recognizance of Rs. 20,000 each alongside a solvent surety in the like amount, subject to conditions of police attendance and non-influence

Kishore Madanlal Jaiswal and Anr. Vs the State… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.367 OF 2020

¶3

1. Kishore Madanlal Jaiswal, Age : 35 years, Occu. Business, R/o Udangaon, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad

¶4

2. Ghanshyam @ Sagar Madanlal Jaiswal, Age : 30 years, Occu. Business, R/o Udangaon, Tq. Sillod, District Aurangabad APPLICANTS

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

1. The State of Maharashtra, through Ajintha Police Station, Aurangabad

¶7

2. The Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS

¶8

Mr. Kale, Advocate representing Talekar and Associates for the applicants
Mr. V.M. Kagne, A.P.P. for the respondents/State

¶9

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

¶10

DATE :19.01.2021

¶11

PER COURT:

¶12

Heard.

¶13

2. Apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No.47 of

¶14

2020, registered with Ajintha Police Station, District Aurangabad for the

¶15

offences punishable under Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

¶16

¶17

ABA367-2020

¶18

the Indian Penal Code, the applicants are seeking bail in the event of their
arrest.

¶19

3.Shortly stated, the prosecution case is that the deceased
alongwith the applicants was running a business establishment. The
applicants were due huge amount to him. He was insisting for its payment.
He had even approached the village dispute redressal Committee. The
applicants had threatened him of dire consequences if he would open mouth
before the Committee and utter about any payment/claim for money. It is
further alleged that during the meeting, inspite of the deceased and his father
having begged the applicants for payment, they refused to pay. The deceased
was under stress. Because of all these incidents, he committed suicide.

¶20

4.The learned Advocate for the applicants submits that accepting
the allegations at their face value, at the most it would be a civil liability
which the applicants failed to clear. However, that cannot constitute
abetment within the meaning of Section 107 of the IPC. There is nothing to
be discovered by or recovered from them. Already the investigation is over
and even the chargesheet has been filed. They are ready to cooperate the
Investigating Officer. There are no criminal antecedents and the applicants
may be granted anticipatory bail.

¶21

5.The learned A.P.P. opposes the application. He submits that the
offence is serious. There is ample evidence to indicate that the applicants

¶22

¶23

ABA367-2020

¶24

were due huge amount to the deceased. He was insisting for its payment.
They were threatening him and even did not pay a single pai. Such conduct
of the applicants cumulatively has led the deceased to take final step, which
would constitute instigation within the meaning of Section 107 of the IPC.

¶25

6.I have carefully gone through the papers. It is indeed
unfortunate that a person has lost his life. There is also enough evidence to
show that the applicants were due money to him. But then, there is no logical
and legitimate nexus between such dues and the act of the deceased to
commit suicide. At the most, it could be said that such failure to repay
money might have triggered the incident of suicide, but that cannot be prima
facie said to be instigation as defined under Section 107 of the IPC. There is
no evidence to demonstrate that the applicants even remotely were intending
to lead the deceased to commit suicide.

¶26

7. Considering the nature of the allegations and the

¶27

aforementioned facts and circumstances coupled with the fact that already
the chargesheet has been filed, the application deserves to be allowed subject
to usual terms and conditions.

¶28

8.The application is allowed. In the event of arrest of the
applicants in connection with Crime No.47 of 2020 registered with Ajintha
Police Station, District Aurangabad for the offences punishable under
Sections 306, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, they

¶29

ABA367-2020

¶30

¶31

shall be released on bail on their executing personal recognizance for an
amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) each and furnishing a
solvent surety each in the like amount subject to following conditions :

¶32

a]They shall attend the concerned Police Station on two
consecutive Wednesdays starting from 27.01.2021 between
11.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. and shall cooperate the Investigating
Officer.

¶33

b]They shall not tamper the evidence or influence the witnesses.

¶34

[MANGESH S. PATIL]
JUDGE

¶35

npj/ABA367-2020

Kishore Madanlal Jaiswal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishore Madanlal Jaiswal and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

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

Charan Kumar S/O Murlidhar Gavali Vs Deepak S/O. Gopalkrishna Shashtri and Anr.

Babundar @ Vikas S/O Dharamjeet Pal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sindhubai W/O. Sukhdeo Waykar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Jayram Siddheshwar Kancharlawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rajesh S/O. Parshuram Thakre Vs the State of Maharashtra

Alka W/O. Shriram Khalge and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.