Gujarat High Court
Krishnaba Fatesang Rathod vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Reserved On : 03/07/2025
Pronounced On : 10/07/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR ANTICIPATORY BAIL) NO. 11354
of 2025
With
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 12060 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI Sd/-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
KRISHNABA FATESANG RATHOD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR BM MANGUKIYA(437) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS BELA A PRAJAPATI(1946) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. ANANTANAND J SINGH(10046) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR. JAY MEHTA, LD. ADDL. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s)
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DIVYESH A. JOSHI
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP waives service of
notice of rule for respondent - State of Gujarat and Mr. Anant
Anand Singh waives service of notice for and on behalf of the
original complainant.
2. Since the issues involved in the above captioned
applications are interconnected, those were heard analogously
and are being disposed of by this common judgment and
order.
3. By way of the present application under Section 482 of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short "BNSS"), the
applicants have prayed for anticipatory bail in the event of arrest
in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.I-11205048250167 of
2025 registered with Koday Police Station, Kutch for the alleged
offences as mentioned in the FIR.
4. It appears that the original first informant, the brother of
the deceased lodged a first information report in connection
with the incident of suicide committed by his sister on
27.05.2025. In the first information report, three persons have
been named as the accused (1) Dashrathsinh Fatehsinh
Rathod (husband) (2) Fatehsinh Narubha Rathod (father-in- law
and (3) Krishnaba Fatehsinh Rathod (mother-in-law).
5. According to the FIR, the marriage of the deceased was
solemnized with the accused No.1 somewhere in the year
2014, and after the marriage, the deceased started residing at
her matrimonial home along with their in-laws at village
Talvana. However, since last six years, all the accused persons
started harassing and taunting the sister of the complainant,
and the accused No.1 husband often used to make a quarrel
with the deceased on petty issues, and the accused No.1 also
used to beat the deceased. The deceased often complained
about such ill-treatment and quarrel that had taken place in
the house to her parents and brothers. However, with a view to
ascertain that the matrimonial life of his sister may not get
disturbed, they always persuaded the deceased and used to
tell her to keep patience. Thereafter, three months ago, the
deceased called the complainant and informed him that she
has been brutally beaten by her husband and she is bleeding,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
and upon hearing the same, the complainant accompanied by
his cousin Meghrajsinh Narpatsinh and his mother Manharba
went to the matrimonial house of the deceased at village
Talvana, where they found that there was a bleeding from the
mouth of the deceased and some injuries were also found to
be there near the eyes of the deceased. Then, they took the
deceased along with them at village Sinugra at her parental
home. Thereafter, before one month, the accused No.1 came
to the house of the complainant and told the father of the
complainant that he want to get back the deceased and now
he would not beat the deceased, and upon such assurance
being given, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial
house. Then, again, just after three to four day, the deceased
called her mother and complained that there is no charge in
the conduct of her husband and he again started making
quarrel with her and is beating her. Then, in the month of
February, 2025, the deceased came to her parental home to
attend the Shrremant ceremony of the wife of the complainant,
and at that time she stayed there for about a week, and during
the said stay, she used to complain about the ill-treatment
meted out to her by her husband and his parents. Then,
twenty days ago, they sent one common friend of the father of
the complainant and the father-in-law of the deceased,
namely, Lakhubha Punjabha Gadhvi, to persuade the in-laws of
the deceased, and accordingly, he went there at village
Talsana and met the father-in-law, upon which, the father-in-
law assured him that he will make an arrangement of a
separate residence for the deceased and the accused No.1,
however, he did not make any such arrangement. Even, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
friend of the deceased, namely, Binaben often used to inform
the complainant about the ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased. Then, on 27.05.2025, at around 11;00 O'clock in
the morning, the complainant received a phone call from his
father who was there at Mundra and he informed the
complainant that the deceased is not opening the door, and
therefore, asked the complainant to make a phone call to the
deceased and tell her to open the door, upon which, the
complainant made a ten phone calls to the deceased, however,
the deceased did not pick up a single call, and therefore, the
father of the deceased along with their friends left Mundra to
reach to village Talsana and the complainant also left Sinugra,
and when he reached to village Talsana at around 12:30 p.m.,
he found her sister Dharmisthaben dead lying in the kitchen,
and strangulation marks were also found to be there on the
neck of the deceased, and one tangled Saree was also lying
there near the dead body. With this sort of allegations, the
present FIR has been registered alleging that due to incessant
mental and physical harassment meted out to the deceased by
the applicants, she has committed suicide.
6. Thus, apprehending their arrest pursuant to the registration
of the aforesaid FIR, the applicants preferred anticipatory bail
applications before the trial court, however, the said applications
has not entertained by the trial court.
7. Being aggrieved, the applicants are here before this
Court with the present application.
8. Learned advocate Mr. B.M. Mangukiya appearing for the
applicants submits that the allegations made in the FIR are of
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
such a nature, for which, custodial interrogation of the applicants
at this stage is not necessary. He further submits that the
applicants will keep themselves available during the course of
investigation as well as the trial proceedings and will not flee
from justice. He further submits that the dispute involved in the
present matter appears to be matrimonial in nature between the
husband and wife, for which, the parents of the husband have
also been falsely dragged into the offence by levelling general
and vague allegations of instigating the husband. Learned
advocate Mr. Mangukiya also submits that the marriage span of
the accused No.1 and the deceased was 11 years, and out of the
wedlock, two children are born, namely, a daughter Hetanshiba
aged about four years, and son Yugdevsinh aged about one year.
The applicants herein happens to be the mother-in-law and
father-in-law of the deceased who were residing separately
from the deceased. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits
that if the entire FIR is to be read in its entirety, not a single
instance about any proximate cause just before the occurrence
of the incident has been narrated in the FIR which is one of the
essential ingredients to be established to constitute the
offence of abetment of suicide. Further, there has to be a mens
rea on the part of the applicant from the very inception
meaning thereby that the accused was having knowledge
about the consequences of the act alleged to have been
committed by the accused. He also submits that the accused
No.1 is the only son of the applicants and the deceased was
insisting to reside separately, due to which, disputes had been
cropped up. Learned advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that at
the time of opposing the anticipatory bail application before
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
the trial court, the prosecuting agency has come with a case
that even two years ago also, due to incessant harassment at
the end of her husband and in-laws, the deceased had tried to
commit suicide by consuming acid, however, to substantiate
such a claim, the prosecuting agency has not produced any
single piece of evidence to indicate that any treatment was
being taken by the deceased at any hospital or that any
application or representation had been made by the deceased
or her relatives in regard to the said incident. Learned
advocate Mr. Mangukiya submits that undoubtedly it is an
unfortunate incident, but for that, sending the applicants who
are mother-in-law and father-in-law, aged about 54 years and
60 years respectively behind the bar, on the basis of general
and vague allegations, would not any purpose and it would be
nothing but an abuse of process of law.
9. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned advocate
Mr. Mangukiya prays that there being merit in the present
applications, the same be allowed and the applicants be released
on anticipatory bail.
10. On the other hand, the present applications have been
vehemently opposed by the learned APP. Learned APP submits
that the present applicants have been named in the FIR along
with their specific role. He further submits that the marriage span
of the accused No.1 and the deceased was about 11 years, and
during that period, the deceased was being continuously
harassed by the accused persons, and on number of occasions,
the deceased made a complain about the same to her parents
and brothers. He submits that once due to such incessant
harassment and torture, the deceased left the matrimonial home
and went to her parental home and stayed there for some time,
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
and thereafter, due to intervention of the relatives and elderly
persons, the matter was settled and she again went to her
matrimonial home. However, there was no change in the conduct
of the accused persons. Learned APP also submits that just
before three months from the date of the incident, the deceased
called her parents and told that her husband is beating her up
and the applicants herein are instigating him to do so. Not only
that, the accused No.1 was a drunkard, and at times, in such an
intoxicated condition, he used to beat the deceased, and at that
point of time, instead of protecting the deceased, the applicants
used to instigate her husband. Moreover, as per the statement of
the friend of the deceased, namely, Binaben, just before two days
from the date of the incident, there was a birthday of the son of
the deceased, and at that point of time, the accused No.1 created
a ruckus in the house and scolded the deceased that there is no
need to expend so much money in celebrating the birthdays, and
at that time, the applicants were also present there and they
were instigating her husband. He submits that even earlier also,
the deceased attempted to commit suicide by consuming acid,
for which, she was shifted to the hospital where treatment was
given to her, and the investigating agency are in the process to
collect evidence in this regard.
11. In such circumstances, referred to above, learned APP prays
that there being no merit in the present applications, the same
be rejected.
12. The present applications have also been opposed by
learned advocate Mr. Anant Anand Singh appearing for the
original complainant. He submits that almost all the points have
been covered by the learned APP, and as such, he is adopting all
the arguments canvassed by the learned APP, and prays not to
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
entertain the present applications.
13. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the record.
14. The applicants before me are the mother-in-law and father-
in-law by way of filing separate applications. If the allegations
made in the FIR are perused, they are crystal clear. Specific
allegations have been levelled against both the applicants that
the deceased was subjected to intolerable harassment and
torture by the applicants and the accused No.1. From the
allegations, it appears that there was continuous harassment and
torture from the accused to the deceased, and at one instance,
being fed up with such an incessant harassment and torture at
the end of the accused persons, the deceased left her
matrimonial home and went to her parental home. However, it is
true that there was settlement took place later on, but conduct
and behavior of the accused was not changed. Even after the
settlement the accused persons used to harass the deceased.
15. From the materials placed on record, more particularly,
from the affidavit filed by the investigating officer while opposing
the bail application before the trial court, it appears that even
earlier also, the deceased attempted to commit suicide by
consuming acid, for which, she was taken to the hospital for the
purpose of treatment. It is not in dispute, as argued by the
learned counsel for the applicants that there is no medical
evidence available on record in this regard, however, as per
the said affidavit, the investigating agency is carrying out the
investigation in this direction to collect the said medical
evidence. Moreover, the statement of one friend of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
deceased, namely, Binaben has also been recorded by the
investigating officer, wherein she has very categorically stated
that the deceased often used to complain her about the ill-
treatment meted out by the accused persons. As per the
statement of the said witness, once the deceased told her that
she is fed up with the incessant torture and harassment from
her in-laws and she wants to end her life, but she is alive only
for her children.
16. I have also gone through the impugned order passed by
the trial court, rejecting anticipatory bail applications. There
are serious allegations against the applicants, and therefore,
looking to the nature and gravity of the offence, the learned
trial judge has rightly rejected the bail applications of the
applicants as the order of grant of anticipatory bail cannot be
passed in a very slipshod and casual manner. A bare perusal of
the impugned order reflects proper application of mind so far
as the relevant aspects which are to be taken into
consideration while deciding a bail application in a serious
offence like the one on hand.
17. Since what has been prayed before me is to release the
applicants on anticipatory bail, I must look into the position of
law as very exhaustively explained by the Supreme Court in
the case of Ash Mohammed v. Shiv Raj Singh alias Lalla Babu
and Anr., reported in 2012 Criminal Law Journal, 4670. The
relevant observations made by the Supreme Court are as
under.
"10. In Ram Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh and
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
others, AIR 2002 SUPREME COURT 1475, it has been
opined that the grant of bail though involves exercise of
discretionary power of the Court, such exercise of
discretion has to be made in a judicious manner and not
as a matter of course. Heinous nature of the crime
warrants more caution and there is greater chance of
rejection of bail, though, however dependent on the
factual matrix of the matter. In the said case the learned
Judges referred to the decision in Prahlad Singh Bhati v.
NCT, Delhi and another, Appeal (crl.) 324 of 2001 and
stated as follows:
"(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not
only the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a
threat for the complainant should also weigh with the
court in the matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie
satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered
and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the
event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of
the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the
accused is entitled to an order of bail."
11. In Chaman Lal v. State of U. P. and another, 1967 SCR
(3) 981 this Court while dealing with an application for
bail has stated that certain factors are to be considered
for grant of bail, they are; (i) the nature of accusation and
the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the
nature of supporting evidence; (ii) reasonable
apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant; and (iii) prima
facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
12. In Masroor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another,
while giving emphasis for ascribing reasons for granting
of bail, however, brief it may be, a two-Judge Bench
observed that there is no denying the fact that the liberty
of an individual is precious and is to be zealously
protected by the courts. Nonetheless, such a protection
cannot be absolute in every situation. The valuable right
of liberty of an individual and the interest of the society
in general has to be balanced. Liberty of a person
accused of an offence would depend upon the exigencies
of the case.
13. In Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and
another, it has been observed that normally this Court
does not interfere with an order passed by the High Court
granting or rejecting the bail of the accused, however, it
is equally incumbent upon the High Court to exercise its
discretion judiciously, cautiously and strictly in
compliance with the basic principles laid down in a
plethora of decisions of this Court on the point. Among
other circumstances the factors which are to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are
whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground to
believe that the accused had committed the offence;
nature and gravity of the accusation; severity of the
punishment in the event of conviction; danger of the
accused absconding or fleeing, if released on bail;
character, behaviour, means, position and standing of the
accused; likelihood of the offence being repeated;
reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being
influenced; and danger, of course, of justice being
thwarted by grant of bail.
19. We are absolutely conscious that liberty of a person
should not be lightly dealt with, for deprivation of liberty
of a person has immense impact on the mind of a person.
Incarceration creates a concavity in the personality of an
individual. Sometimes it causes a sense of vacuum.
Needless to emphasize, the sacrosanctity of liberty is
paramount in a civilized society. However, in a
democratic body polity which is wedded to Rule of Law an
individual is expected to grow within the social
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
restrictions sanctioned by law. The individual liberty is
restricted by larger social interest and its deprivation
must have due sanction of law. In an orderly society an
individual is expected to live with dignity having respect
for law and also giving due respect to others' rights. It is
a well accepted principle that the concept of liberty is not
in the realm of absolutism but is a restricted one. The cry
of the collective for justice, its desire for peace and
harmony and its necessity for security cannot be allowed
to be trivialized. The life of an individual living in a
society governed by Rule of Law has to be regulated and
such regulations which are the source in law subserve the
social balance and function as a significant instrument for
protection of human rights and security of the collective.
It is because fundamentally laws are made for their
obedience so that every member of the society lives
peacefully in a society to achieve his individual as well as
social interest. That is why Edmond Burke while
discussing about liberty opined, "it is regulated freedom".
20. It is also to be kept in mind that individual liberty
cannot be accentuated to such an extent or elevated to
such a high pedestal which would bring in anarchy or
disorder in the society. The prospect of greater justice
requires that law and order should prevail in a civilized
milieu. True it is, there can be no arithmetical formula for
fixing the parameters in precise exactitude but the
adjudication should express not only application of mind
but also exercise of jurisdiction on accepted and
established norms. Law and order in a society protect the
established precepts and see to it that contagious crimes
do not become epidemic. In an organized society the
concept of liberty basically requires citizens to be
responsible and not to disturb the tranquility and safety
which every well-meaning person desires. Not for nothing
J. Oerter stated:
"Personal liberty is the right to act without interference
within the limits of the law."
21. Thus analyzed, it is clear that though liberty is a
greatly cherished value in the life of an individual,it is a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
controlled and restricted one and no element in the
society can act in a manner by consequence of which the
life or liberty of others is jeopardized, for the rational
collective does not countenance an anti-social or anti-
collective act.
22. Having said about the sanctity of liberty and the
restrictions imposed by law and the necessity of
collective security, we may proceed to state as to what is
the connotative concept of bail. In Halsbury's Laws of
England10it has been stated thus:-
"The effect of granting bail is not to set the defendant
(accused) at liberty but to release him from the custody
of law and to entrust him to the custody of his sureties
who are bound to produce him to appear at his trial at a
specified time and place. The sureties may seize their
principal at any time and may discharge themselves by
handing him over to the custody of law and he will then
be imprisoned."
23. In Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and
others11Dr. A.S. Anand, learned Chief Justice, in his
concurring opinion, observed:-
"Bail is well understood in criminal jurisprudence and
Chapter XXXIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure contains
elaborate provisions relating to grant of bail. Bail is
granted to a person who has been arrested in a non-
bailable offence or has been convicted of an offence after
trial. The effect of granting bail is to release the accused
from internment though the court would still retain
constructive control over him through the sureties. In
case the accused is released on his own bond such
constructive control could still be exercised through the
conditions of the bond secured from him. The literal
meaning of the word "bail" is surety."
24. As grant of bail as a legal phenomenon arises when a
crime is committed it is profitable to refer to certain
authorities as to how this Court has understood the
concept of crime in the context of society. In P.S.R.
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
Sadhanantham v. Arunachalam and another, R.S. Pathak,
J. (as his Lordship then was), speaking for himself and
A.D. Kaushal, J, referred to Mogul Steamship Co. v.
McGregor Gow and Co. (1989) 23 QBD 598, 606 and the
definition given by Blackstone and opined thus:-
"A crime, therefore, is an act deemed by law to be
harmful to society in general, even though its immediate
victim is an individual."
25. In Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of
Maharashtra and another a two-Judge Bench, though in a
different context, has observed: -
"Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack
on the civilization of the day. Order is the basic need of
any organized civilized society and any attempt to disturb
that order affects the society and the community."
26. In T. K. Gopal alias Gopi v. State of Karnataka it has
been held that crime can be defined as an act that
subjects the doer to legal punishment. It may also be
defined as commission of an act specifically forbidden by
law; it may be an offence against morality or social
order."
18. I am conscious of the fact that while considering a bail
application, ordinarily the court should not enter into the
appreciation or re-appreciation of the evidence. However, at
least, to consider whether any prima facie case is made out
against the accused persons or not, the court may look into the
papers placed before it. It is specifically alleged against the
applicants that the deceased committed suicide within a period
of 11 years from the date of marriage. The allegations against
the mother-in-law and the father-in-law appears to be that of
instigating the husband of the deceased and on account of
such instigation, the husband used to treat his wife cruelly, and
thus, looking to the seriousness of the allegations made
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
against the applicants, at this preliminary stage of the
investigation, discretion should not be exercised in their
favour. So far as the contention of the counsel for the applicant
that there is no evidence on record against the applicants to
establish any proximate cause just prior to the occurrence of
the incident is concerned, in my view, to establish a proximate
cause prior to a suicide is not the essential ingredient to
constitute the offense of abetment to suicide under Section
306 of the Indian Penal Code. While proximity is a relevant
factor, the core elements are: abetment (instigation,
conspiracy, or intentional aid) and mens rea, i.e, the accused's
intention to aid or instigate the suicide. In cases of suicide, it is
difficult to find out whether there was any mens rea on the
part of the accused, however, in cases of matrimonial disputes,
mens rea can be presumed to be there from the level of
harassment by the accused and its continuity.
19. I am of the view that the case in hand is a very serious
case and cannot be treated like an ordinary case. A young lady
was compelled to end her life leaving behind her two minor
children on account of incessant torture and harassment by
the applicants and their son. It also appears that just two days
before the deceased committed suicide, a quarrel had taken
place in the house at the time of celebrating the birthday of
the son of the deceased. It also appears that at that point of
time, the deceased had called up her parents and her friend
complaining that she had been ill-treated by her husband upon
being instigated by the applicants.
20. Thus, what is discernible from the above is that while
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
deciding anticipatory bail application, it is the first duty of the
Court to see seriousness of the offence, prima facie case and
interest of the society at a large. Therefore, when no special
and compelling circumstances made out before the Court and
no case of false implication of present applicant in the alleged
offence is made out before this Court, I am of the opinion that
discretionary powers of this Court should not be exercised in
favour of the present applicants.
21. In view of above discussion and considering the material
on record produced before this Court, I am of the opinion that
there seems to be a prima facie involvement of the present
applicants in the commission of the alleged offence. This Court
is of the opinion that at the initial stage of the investigation of
the offence, grant of anticipatory bail in favour of the
applicants is likely to hamper the investigation and
investigating agency is likely to lose an opportunity to exploit
all the fact situation, probabilities or opportunities which the
Agency may get during the custodial interrogation of a person,
and therefore, keeping in mind all the factors, no interference
is required at this stage. The impugned order passed by the
trial court rejecting anticipatory bail application of the
applicant is just and proper and does not requires any
interference at the end of this Court.
22. In the result, both applications, being devoid of any
merit, are hereby rejected. However, it is made clear that the
observations made by this Court herein above at this stage
while deciding the anticipatory bail application, would not
come in the way of the applicant at the time as and when if
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/11354/2025 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
ultimately the trial court is proceeded with the trial, and at the
stage of consideration of regular bail application, if preferred
by the applicants. Rule is discharged.
(DIVYESH A. JOSHI,J)
VAHID
