Bombay High Court
Manju Alias Sunil Baban Waykar vs The State Of Maharashtra on 13 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:28730
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
939 ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.1320 OF 2025
Manju Alias Sunil Baban Waykar ..Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
.....
Shri. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocate for the Applicant
Shri. G. A. Kulkarni, APP for the Respondent - State.
.....
CORAM : NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.
Reserved on : OCTOBER 09, 2025
Pronounced on : OCTOBER 13, 2025
ORDER :
-
. This is the Application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, 'BNSS') for Anticipatory Bail in Crime
No.0250/2025 registered with Rahata Police Station, Dist. Ahilyanagar
on 17.06.2025 for the offence punishable under Sections 108, 115(2),
352, 351(2), 351(3), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for
short, 'BNS') and Sections 39, 44, 45 of the Maharashtra Money Lending
(Regulation) Act, 2014 (for short, 'MMLR Act').
2. The aforesaid Crime is registered on the Report lodged by the
Brother of the Deceased Mahindra against the Applicant and two (2)
Others. It is the case of the Prosecution that, the Deceased used to sell
the vegetables in the Vaijapur market. Their Father Bhausaheb was
having agricultural land admeasuring 4 Acres, 26 Gunthas. The said
land was cultivated by all of them. As they were in need of money, the
Deceased borrowed sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh) from the
Applicant on interest. The Applicant used to demand the said amount
with interest and asked the Deceased to pay the amount with interest or
transfer the land in his name and used to abuse and beat the Deceased.
Therefore, the Deceased executed the document in respect of 1 (one)
Acre and 5 (five) Gunthas agricultural land in the nature of the Sale-
deed in favour of the Applicant. It was decided that, after the money
was repaid, the land would be reconveyed to the Deceased. The
Applicant was demanding exorbitant amount from the Deceased to the
tune of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakh) on 16.06.2025. Eventually,
the Deceased committed suicide by hanging. On 17.06.2025 the Police
found the suicide note, in which the Applicant was held responsible for
the suicidal death and consequently, Crime came to be registered.
3. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Applicant that,
there are no elements of instigation or abatement to suicide in the
matter and, therefore, the offence punishable under Section 108 of the
B.N.S. will not be attracted. He submitted that, on the basis of one
transaction, no action under the MMLR Act was permissible. The
Applicant is ready to co-operate with the investigating machinery, and
considering the nature of the accusations, the Anticipatory Bail be
granted. In support of his submissions, he relied on the Judgments in
Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2025) 4 SCC 801, and
Ratnabai Ratu Bheemashankar Chitte vs. State of Maharashtra through
Murum Police Station and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 3291.
4. The Application is opposed by the learned APP for the State. He
submitted that, the object of enacting the MMLR Act was to curb the
harassment of the debt-ridden farmers at the hands of the money
lenders. The said Act was enacted to curb activities like one in which
the Applicant is involved. He submitted that, the suicide note clearly
shows that, the Applicant was responsible for the suicide. The
investigation indicates seizure of certain documents in the house search
of the Applicant, such as, bond papers, 7/12 extracts of other
agriculturists etc., which indicate that, the Applicant was indulging in
the money lending activity contrary to the provisions of the MMLR Act.
He relied on the Judgment in Abhinav Mohan Delkar vs. The State of
Maharashtra & Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 812.
5. As far as the offence for abatement to suicide is concerned, the
law is well settled in the Judgment of Abhinav (supra), wherein it is
observed that, 'to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with
Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find
that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous
harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject
to the extreme act of taking one's life.' In Mahendra (supra), it is
observed that, 'over the last several decades, it was repeatedly reiterated
that the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now
Section 108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023]
to be attracted and the conduct of the proposed accused and the
deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the
unfortunate death of the deceased should be approached from a
practical point of view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life' .
6. The F.I.R. speaks of borrowing money by the Deceased from the
Applicant. The death is suicidal. The suicide note is left behind by the
Deceased, wherein it is mentioned that, ' the Deceased borrowed Rs.
2,00,000/- (Rs. Two Lakh) from the Applicant which went up to
Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakh) with interest, the Applicant beat the
Deceased, the Deceased sold the land to the Applicant, the Deceased
paid Rs.11,00,000/- (Rs. Eleven Lakh) in installments, however, the
Applicant did not return the land and the Applicant threatened that he
would send the boys to beat the Deceased and therefore, he committed
suicide. Government is requested to do the enquiry of the Applicant, and
two have committed suicide prior to this'.
7. Even if it is considered that the essential ingredients required to
attract the Act of abatement of suicide are absent in the Prosecution's
case, prima facie it is clear from the suicide note that, the death is prima
facie connected to the financial transaction between the Deceased and
the Applicant, which, according to the Prosecution and clear from the
suicide was the loan transaction. There is copy of the sale-deed in
favour of the Applicant by the Deceased and father of Deceased in
respect of part of agricultural land out of the Gat No.191. The Police
papers show that, in the house search of the Applicant, apart from the
personal documents of the Applicant, 7/12 extracts of the agricultural
lands in the name of the other persons, the bond papers and other
documents were seized. The said documents in the nature of bonds and
7/12 extracts in the name of the other persons found in the possession
of the Applicant lend prima facie support the Prosecution's case in
respect of the offence under provisions of MMLR Act. The Police Report
shows that, one previous Crime bearing No.397/2024 was registered
with Rahata Police Station against the Applicant for the offence
punishable under Sections 307, 143, 147, 148, 149, 324, 323, 504, 506
of the Indian Penal Code and 4/25 (Act not mentioned).
8. Considering the nature of offence and the above discussed aspects
of the matter, in my view, this is not the fit case to grant protection
under Section 482 of the BNSS and hence, the following order.
ORDER
(i) The Application is rejected.
( NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J. )
GGP
Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 13/10/2025 16:47:19
