Allowed

Amar Dattatray Dudhane v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC15 Jul 2024ABA/1314/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two anticipatory bail applications arose from an FIR alleging abetment of suicide after a dispute over motors installed to draw river water. The court found the intention to instigate suicide missing, noted cooperation with investigation, confirmed interim orders and allowed both applications.

What did the court decide?

Interim orders dated 14.05.2024 confirmed; applications allowed; applicants not to be arrested subject to cooperating with investigation and trial.

Amar Dattatray Dudhane vs the State of Maharashtra — Anticipatory Bail | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18.ABA.1314.2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1314 OF 2024

¶4

Amar Dattatray Dudhane ...Applicant

¶5

Versus

¶6

SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI

¶7

Digitally signed by SHRIKANT SHRINIVAS MALANI Date: 2024.09.03 13:02:23 +0530

¶8

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶9

WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1357 OF 2024

¶10

Abhijit Sopan Ghule ...Applicant

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

¶13

¶14

Mr. Chaitanya Pendse a/w Mr. hrishikesh Avhad and Mr. Adesh C., for Applicant in ABA/1314/2024.

¶15

 Mr. Niranjan Mundargi a/w Mr. Shailesh Chavan, Mr. Adesh C. and Mr. Pruthviraj Chavan, for Applicant in ABA/1357/2024.  Mr. Mayur S. Sonavane, APP for Respondent.

¶16

¶17

CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : 02^nd SEPTEMBER, 2024.

¶18

P. C. :

¶19

Heard, learned counsel for the applicants and learned APP for the

¶20

State.

¶21

In these applications on 14.05.2024, this Court (Coram : M.W. Chandwani, J.) recorded a statement made by the learned APP appearing on that date in these applications that the applicants would not be arrested on the

¶22

condition that they would cooperate with the investigation. According to the

Page1 of 5

Shrikant Malani

18.ABA.1314.2024.doc

learned counsel for the applicants, both the applicants appeared before the Investigating Officer and therefore, cooperated with the investigation.

¶27

The learned APP sought short adjournment, as the Investigating Officer is not present today, but, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that this Court may consider the applications on merits, as according to them, the basic ingredient of the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not made out, in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶28

The informant in the present case is the brother of the deceased. He has described three incidents of 17.01.2024, 06.03.2024 and 13.04.2024, for which the applicants and co-accused persons were responsible, which drove his brother i.e. the victim to commit suicide on 13.04.2024. The allegation is that the co-accused persons had caused installation of motors allegedly on the land belonging to the deceased for drawing water from a river. This led to dispute between the parties and eventually the victim committing suicide.

¶29

The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that even if the statement of the informant is to be taken into consideration, it cannot be said that the actions undertaken by the applicants and/or the employee of applicant Abhijit Sopan Ghule could be said to have been undertaken with an intention to drive the victim to commit suicide. Hence, the basic ingredient of the

Page2 of 5

Shrikant Malani

18.ABA.1314.2024.doc

offence is missing. It is submitted that in any case, the applicants have cooperated with the investigation and therefore, the interim orders may be confirmed and the applications may be allowed.

¶34

On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that the statement of the informant, while narrating the series of incidents, one of the incidents being soon before the actual act of the victim committing suicide, demonstrated that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC are prima facie made out.

¶35

This Court has considered the rival submissions in the light of the material available on record. The offence under Section 306 of the IPC pertains to abetment of suicide. In this connection when definition of abetment given under Section 107 of the IPC is considered, one of the vital ingredients is an instigation to a person to do a particular thing. In the present case, the extreme step taken by the victim is the act which the applicants and other accused persons have allegedly instigated him to undertake.

¶36

The FIR in the present case is filed in the backdrop of a dispute arising between the parties in connection with the applicants having allegedly installed motor in the land of the informant and his decceased brother, for drawing water from the river. There are documents on record to show that the applicants themselves had approached the State Authorities in connection

Page3 of 5

Shrikant Malani

18.ABA.1314.2024.doc

with the said dispute, raising a grievance against the informant and his brother. It is significant to note that on 13.04.2024, in the backdrop of the incident alleged by the informant himself, a prior FIR was registered at 20.11 hours at the behest of a labourer purportedly working with the applicant Abhijit Sopan Ghule, wherein offences, inter alia, under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, were registered against the informant and his nephew.

¶41

Subsequently, the subject FIR came to be registered on 15.04.2024, after about two days and this aspect also needs to be taken into consideration. In any case, even if the entire statement of the informant is to be accepted, including the description of the incident dated 13.04.2024, prima facie it cannot be said that such actions were undertaken by the applicants with the intention of instigating the victim to commit suicide. The backdrop of the dispute between the parties cannot be ignored and therefore, the applicants have made out a case in their favour.

¶42

In any case, the applicants have appeared before the Investigating Officer after the interim orders were passed in their favour and hence, the applications deserve to be allowed.

¶43

In view of the above, the interim orders dated 14.05.2024, are confirmed and the applications are allowed.

Page4 of 5

Shrikant Malani

18.ABA.1314.2024.doc

The applicants shall cooperate with the Trial Court for

¶48

expeditious disposal of the trial.

¶49

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶50

Page5 of 5

¶51

Shrikant Malani

Amar Dattatray Dudhane v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amar Dattatray Dudhane 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nadeem Majid Oomerbhoy vs 1(A) Riyad Rashid Oomerbhoy and Ors.

Nilesh Laxman Pavadmal vs Satyajeet Vaman Bhagat

Ramzan Kamruddin Shaikh @ Dabbu vs the State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra State Electricity Board vs Official Liquidaor of Bombay High Court

Mohammad Alit Sayyed@Sameer vs State of Maharashtra

Nitin Vitthal Khandare vs the State of Maharashtra