Bombay High Court
Santosh Dhondu Gurav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 10 March, 2022
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3228 OF 2021
Santosh Dhondu Gurav .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
...
Mr.Raviraj Paramane for the Applicant.
Ms.S.S.Kaushik, A.P.P. for the State/Respondent.
PSI Shri Vaibhav R. Chumbale attached to Tilak Nagar Police
Station, Thane, present.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 10th MARCH, 2022
P.C:-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP.
With the assistance of the respective counsel, I have
perused the charge-sheet which compile the material against
the present applicant, who is charged with the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
2. The deceased is one Mandar Veralkar, who hanged
himself by the ceiling fan in his house on 31/03/2020.,
pursuant thereto, an ADR was registered.
M.M.Salgaonkar
2/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
The deceased was residing with his mother Smt.Arati
Veralkar and after the incident took place, she gave a
statement that she is in extreme grief and is not in a position
to record any statement. She also stated that her elder brother
Dinkar Malvankar takes all decisions for her and she would
only give her statement in his presence.
3. After the incident, on 13/06/2020, Smt.Arati Veralkar
recorded her statement and in respect of the act of suicide by
her son, wherein she state that the deceased was introduced to
the present applicant, from whom he had borrowed a sum of
Rs.13,44,000/- in June 2018, at the interest rate of 12.5%.
She further state that the documents of the house of his friend,
Sujay Dalvi (the co-accused) as well as of her sister-in-law,
Geeta Veralkar were kept as security as against the loan
obtained and the said two persons acted as mediator in the
transaction. According to her, the amount was repaid to the
applicant by her son and she give the details of such payment,
which is effected in cash and on two occasions by bank
transfer. According to her, as against the loan of
Rs.13,44,000/-, an amount of Rs.17,81,600/- came to be paid to
the applicant.
She allege that despite the amount being refunded, the
present applicant through Sujay Dalvi was threatening him
and this mounted mental pressure upon her son. She make a
reference to the incident dated 28/03/2020, when an attempt
was made to reconcile the difference, but at that time, it is
alleged that the applicant demanded further sum of
Rs.15,00,000/- and the applicant and Sujay Dalvi were
M.M.Salgaonkar
3/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
constantly threatening her son. This constant harassment
compelled him to take his life on 31/03/2020, when he hanged
himself, is her allegation.
4. On the basis of the said complaint dated 13/06/2020, the
offence came to be registered by Tilak Nagar (Dombivali)
Police Station on 15/07/2020 under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of the IPC against the present applicant and Sujay
Dalvi. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came
to be fled, which compile various messages exchanged
between the deceased and the applicant.
5. The charge-sheet compile the statements of the relatives
of the deceased, including Smt.Geeta Veralkar and Shri Dinkar
Jagannath Malvankar, the brother of the complainant. Their
statements are identical to the statement of the complainant
where they state that an amount of Rs.13,44,000/- was
borrowed from the present applicant, but it was returned on
08/07/2019 alongwith the interest.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
applicant possessed a licence for money lending under the
Maharashtra Money-Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 and the
license was valid from 01/04/2018 to 31/03/2019. Learned
counsel for the applicant state that as a part of his business, he
had advanced amount to the deceased, when he was in need of
money. He has placed on record the receipts of the amount,
which he has received from the deceased and from his bank
M.M.Salgaonkar
4/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
statement, which is a part of the charge-sheet, it can be seen
that apart of the loan of Rs.13,00,000/-, an amount of
Rs.18,00,000/- was borrowed by the deceased and the co-
accused, on 26/04/2018 and out of which, deceased Mandar
received a cheque of Rs.9,00,000/- and out of this, an amount
of Rs.10,00,000/- was refunded. As regards the amount of
loan which was provided to the deceased to the tune of
Rs.13,00,000/-, the bank entry refects that the applicant had
to obtain gold loan from Muthoot Finance and only on
obtaining the said amount of Rs.12,92,900/-, he disbursed the
loan in favour of the deceased. As far as the amount of
Rs.13,00,000/- is concerned, learned counsel submits that the
said amount was refunded.
The unpaid amount was in respect of the transaction
dated 26/04/2018, when Rs.9,00,000/- was disbursed in
favour of Sujay Dalvi and Rs.9,00,000/- was disbursed in
favour of the deceased. The said amount is still unpaid, since
2018 and is accruing interest.
There is no mention in the statements of the witnesses
about the said loan obtained by the deceased. Pertinent to
note that the deceased had even submitted the property
documents of Sujay and when the amount was demanded
back, Sujay was interested in getting house his released from
the mortgage and he was also putting pressure upon the
deceased to pay back the amount.
7. Perusal of the material in the charge-sheet would refect
that the applicant was into money-lending business and both,
M.M.Salgaonkar
5/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
the deceased and accused Sujay had borrowed the amount
from him and the amount was outstanding.
The applicant faces a charge of Section 306 of the IPC i.e.
abetment of suicide. By this time, it is a settled position of law
that if a fnancial institution or any person under the valid
license for money-lending, lend some money to a borrower and
if the amount is not repaid and if he seeks it's repayment, it
cannot be construed as an harassment and, surely, not an
instigation to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the
applicant has rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Amit s/o Ashok
Naharkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. [ 2018 ALL MR
(Cri) 4768] as well as in the case of Rohit s/o Nawanath
Nalawade Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Cri.
Application (APL) No.1052 of 2018 decided on 17/12/2020).
8. The offence under Section 306 contemplates an
abetment, which has to be understood as defned under Section
107 of the Penal Code, which contemplates aiding, instigating
or abetting the deceased to commit suicide. Merely demanding
money back, cannot be construed to be falling in either of the
ingredients of the said Section to attract abetment, as
understood in law.
9. In the wake of the aforesaid facts, when the amount of
Rs.9,00,000/- advanced to the deceased remained unpaid till
this date and if the applicant was demanding back the amount,
prima facie, he cannot be found guilty of offence of abetting the
M.M.Salgaonkar
6/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
suicide. Furthermore, the mother of the deceased did not
record the statement immediately, but after a period of three
months she has came forward to record the statement,
alleging that her son had borrowed the sum of Rs.13,44,000/-,
which was repaid. However, she does not state about the
amount of Rs.9,00,000/- which was advanced by the applicant
to her son and Rs.9,00,000/- to the other accused in the crime.
Since the said amount remained unpaid on the date on which
the deceased committed suicide, which has no mention in the
statement of the complainant and, particularly, when the
investigation is complete, the incarceration of the applicant is
unnecessary. In my considered opinion, he deserves to be
released on bail, subject to the following condition.
: ORDER :
(a) The application is allowed.
(b)Applicant - Santosh Dhondu Gurav shall be
released on bail in C.R.No.I-145 of 2020
registered with Tilak Nagar Police Station,
Dombivali, Thane on furnishing P.R. bond to the
extent of Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties
in the like amount.
(c) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with facts of case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing the facts to Court
or any Police Offcer and shall not tamper with
the prosecution evidence.
M.M.Salgaonkar
7/7 32 BA-3228-21.doc
(d) The applicant shall make himself available as
and when required by the Investigating Offcer.
(e) The applicant shall attend the trial regularly.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
M.M.Salgaonkar
