Bombay High Court
Shobha Dadarao Kundile vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 August, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:20980
1
1452.25BA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
924 BAIL APPLICATION NO.1452 OF 2025
SHOBHA DADARAO KUNDILE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr.K.P.Rodge
APP for Respondent-State : Mrs.P.V.Diggikar
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
DATE : 05.08.2025
P.C. :
1] Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the
learned APP for the respondent-State.
2] The applicant is seeking bail as she is arrested
on 28.06.2025 in connection with Crime No. 0203/2025,
registered with Aurad Shahajani Police Station, Dist. Latur,
for the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3 (5) of
the BNS, 2023.
3] The FIR is registered, on 23.06.2025, by the
brother of the deceased, alleging therein that on 19.06.2025
at about 11.25 p.m. to 11.40 pm. his sister, namely, Sunita
has committed suicide by hanging herself in her residential
house in village Hangarga Sirsi due to harassment by the
1452.25BA
accused persons. It is further alleged that the present
applicant along with co-accused were subjecting the
deceased to cruelty and therefore the deceased committed
suicide. As such, the FIR is registered against them.
4] The learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the deceased married with the son of the applicant in
the year 2005 i.e. 20 years back and they have two children
around 14 years and 16 years of age. He further submits
that the applicant is arrested on 28.06.2025. Thereafter, the
applicant has filed Bail Application before the Sessions
Court and the same was rejected. As such, the present
application is filed before this Court.
5] The learned APP points out the statements of
son and daughter of the deceased dated 24.06.2025
wherein son of the deceased has stated that while he held
the leg of his mother where she was found hanging, the
applicant present there laughed whereas daughter of the
deceased has stated in her statement that when she was
crying near her deceased mother at that time grand mother
had not come near her. As such, the present applicant is
responsible for the death of the deceased. The applicant has
harassed the deceased and as such the deceased committed
suicide and has thus abetted her suicide. The learned APP
further points out the statement of Shakuntala @ Sakhubai
i.e. sister of the deceased wherein she stated that on the day
1452.25BA
when the deceased committed suicide, her sister had
mentioned to her that she with her son wanted to go to
Pune.
6] Per contra, the learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the deceased married with the son of the
applicant in the year 2005 i.e. before 20 years back and the
son of the applicant i.e. husband of the deceased had
developed tuberculosis and the husband of the deceased is
now bedridden. He further submits that prior 1 and half
year, father-in-law of the deceased on account of prevailing
situation in the family had passed away due to heart attack.
He further submits that the husband of the deceased is
suffering from tuberculosis and is bedridden for longtime
and the care requirements of the bedridden son has taken
tole on the family financially and mentally and possibly the
deceased may have committed suicide owing to frustration
for which the applicant is not responsible for death of the
deceased. Under such circumstances, the case of the
applicant would not fall within 108 of the BNS. Considering
the said fact, bail should be granted in favour of the
applicant.
7] Having considered the rival submissions. It
appears from the material placed on record that the
husband of the deceased was suffering from tuberculosis
and he is now bedridden and prior 1 and half year the
1452.25BA
father in law of the deceased on account of prevailing
situation in the family had expired due to heart attack. The
children of the deceased are now residing with the maternal
grand father and mother and that there is nobody present in
the family to take care of the husband of the deceased, who
is suffering from tuberculosis. Considering the fact situation
i.e. huge mental and financial stress on family on account of
bedridden son of applicant and the possible shock received
by the applicant, when in quick succession all adult family
members having passed away her immediate behaviour on
passing away of her daughter in law is not completely
abnormal and considering the evidence as is available on
record, prima facie it cannot be said that the applicant has
instigated or driven the deceased to commit suicide.
8] In the case of Mahendra Awase Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 107, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law in respect of
abatement of suicide at para Nos.14 and 15 as under:-
14. In Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat,
(2010) 8 SCC 628, this Court held that in order
to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC
specific abetment as contemplated by Section
107 IPC on the part of the accused with an
intention to bring about the suicide of the
person concerned as a result of that abetment
is required. It was further held that the
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate
or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a
must for attracting Section 306.
15. In Amalendu Pal alias Bhantu Vs. State of
1452.25BA
West Bengal,(2010) 1 SCC 707, this Court held
as under:-
"12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken
the view that before holding an accused guilty
of an offence under section 306 IPC, the court
must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the
evidence adduced before it in order to find out
whether the cruelty and harassment meted out to
the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It
is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof
of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation
of harassment without there being any positive
action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in
terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.
[Emphasis supplied]"
9] In view of the law discussed in the above
judgment of the Supreme Court, in order to bring out an
offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as
contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused
with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person
concerned as a result of that abetment is required and the
intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the
deceased to commit suicide is a must for attracting Section
306. However, in the instant case the alleged act of the
applicant of harassment cannot be prima-facie termed as
'abetment' to commit suicide.
10] In view of above, the applicant is granted bail.
The application is allowed in the following terms :
1452.25BA
a] The applicant shall be released on bail in
connection with Crime No. 0203/2025, registered
with Aurad Shahajani Police Station, Dist. Latur, for
the offence punishable under Sections 108 and 3 (5)
of the BNS, 2023, on furnishing PR bond of
Rs.20,000/- with one or two sureties in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
b] The applicant, upon being released on bail,
shall not contact the informant, in any manner
whatsoever, during the pendency of the trial.
c] The applicant shall co-operate with the trial
Court and she shall attend each and every date,
unless exempted by the trial Court.
d] The applicant shall not tamper with the
evidence of the prosecution and she shall not
influence the informant, witnesses and other persons
concerned with the case.
e] The applicant, upon being released on bail,
shall place on record of the trial Court the details of
her Contact Number and residential address with
updates in case of any change.
1452.25BA
11] Needless to say, in case of violation of any of
the aforesaid conditions, the bail granted to the applicant
shall be liable to be cancelled. It is also clarified that the
observations made in this order are limited to the disposal
of the present bail application. The concerned Court shall
proceed further in the matter without being influenced by
the observations made hereinabove.
12] The application stands disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER]
JUDGE
DDC
