Bombay High Court
Manjula Bholanath Singh vs The State Of Maharashtra on 27 January, 2022
Bench: S. V. Kotwal
1/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 112 OF 2022
Manjula Bholanath Singh .... Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent
______
Mr. A. S. Khandeparkar i/b. Rakesh H. Pathak for Applicant.
Mr. P. H. Gaikwad, APP for State/Respondent.
______
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 27th JANUARY 2022
(through Video Conferencing)
P.C. :
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No. 1241 of 2021 registered at Sakinaka Police Station,
on 12/12/2021, under sections 304-B, 498-A, 306 and 504 r/w. 34
of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard Shri. Khandeparkar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Shri. Gaikwad, learned APP for the State.
3. The First Information Report (for short 'F.I.R.) in this
case is lodged by mother of the deceased Jyoti. The applicant is
Digitally
signed by
mother in law of deceased Jyoti. The applicant's son Shubham got
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2022.01.27
18:49:10
+0530
Gokhale
2/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
married with Jyoti in the month of August 2016. During marriage
the deceased was given gold ornaments as stridhan. Similarly, the
applicant's son was given gold ornaments, wrist watch and other
household articles. The couple had their first son in the month of
August 2017, till then everything was alright between the couple
and the applicant's family. After her delivery, Jyoti became weak
and, therefore, she was unable to do her household work properly.
The F.I.R. mentions that the present applicant, Jyoti's husband and
brother in law used to humiliate her by taunting her. They used to
say that if she could not look after the household work then why
she had delivered a baby. The informant had pleaded with the
applicant's family not to cause harassment to Jyoti, but the
harassment continued. The applicant was telling Jyoti to bring
money, as nothing was paid at the time of marriage. She also used
to abuse Jyoti. Jyoti was frequently calling the informant
telephonically and was requesting her to tell the applicant not to
cause harassment. Jyoti started suffering health-wise.
4. In April 2021, she had undertaken complete medical
checkup, but no ailment was found, though Jyoti was suffering
3/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
from weakness. The applicant and Jyoti's husband were telling
Jyoti to bring money from her parents as they had spent a lot on
her medical treatment. The deceased Jyoti was harassed on this
count.
5. On 13/11/2021 Jyoti told the applicant and others
that, she had become pregnant second time. At that time, the
applicant and her other son started causing more harassment and
started demanding money. On that count the harassment
increased. On 11/12/2021, ultimately, Jyoti committed suicide by
hanging herself. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the
allegations against the applicant are general in nature. There was
no demand at the time of marriage. Therefore, Section 304-B of
IPC is not attracted. He submitted that, there was no intention
behind any of the acts of the applicant that deceased should
commit suicide. Therefore, offence under section 306 of IPC is not
made out. Learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the case of M. Arjunan Versus State represented
by its Inspector of Police1, in support of his contentions.
1 2018 DGLS (SC) 1349
4/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
7. Learned APP opposed this application and relied on
not only the F.I.R., but on the statements of witnesses recorded
during investigation, as well as, WhatsApp messages sent on a
family group by the deceased herself.
8. I have considered these submissions. The WhatsApp
messages tell their own story. The deceased had mentioned that
her life had become hell. In the message dated 27/03/2021, she
had stated that she had become tired. On one occasion she has
mentioned that nobody deserved to get mother in law like the
present applicant. In the message dated 11/12/2021, she has
stated that if something happened the son is kept away from the
deceased. Apart from these WhatsApp messages, there are
statements of Anita Thakur who was aunt of the deceased, Muskan
who is sister of the deceased, Shweta who is also a sister of
deceased. These witnesses have consistently stated about the
harassment caused by the applicant and others to the deceased.
9. The material against the present applicant definitely
brings the offence within the ambit of the sections which are
applied. Section 498-A of IPC itself is clear enough. Explanations
5/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
given under section 498-A of IPC is applicable to the facts in this
case. Explanation 'A' and 'B' read thus:-
"(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature
as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide
or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand."
There are clear allegations that the deceased was
harassed because she was unable to fulfill unlawful demands for
any property. The conduct was also of such a nature and was likely
to drive Jyoti to commit suicide. Jyoti, in fact, did commit suicide.
Therefore, all these offences are clearly applicable.
10. So far as the Judgment relied on by learned counsel for
the applicant in the case of M. Arjunan (supra) is concerned, the
facts are entirely different. In that case, there was money
transaction between the accused and deceased and in that context
the observations were made that having advanced the money to
the deceased, the accused might have uttered some abusive words;
6/6 04-aba-112-22(f)
but that by itself was not sufficient to constitute the offence under
Section 306 of IPC. The facts are clearly distinguishable in the
present case. The offence is clearly made out in the present case.
The applicant is not even arrested. Her custodial interrogation is
necessary considering the nature of allegations. The evidence
collected so far shows that offence of abetment to commit suicide
is made out as envisaged under section 107 r/w. Section 306 of
IPC. No case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out.
11. The application is rejected.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
