1/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.528 OF 2026 Rahul Dattatray Chavan ….Applicant Versus. The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. ....Respondents ----- Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde (Through VC), for Applicant. Mr. S. H. Yadav, A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – State. Ms. Smita Shinde, appointed Advocate for Respondent No.3 (Through Legal Aid). PSI, Mr. S. V. Salve, Mandrup Police Station, Solapur Rural, present. ------- CORAM : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J. DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. 1. Heard, Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P., for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 - State and Ms. Smita Shinde, learned Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2. By the present Application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), the Applicant seeks pre-arrest bail, apprehending arrest in connection with Crime No. 324 of 2026 registered at Mandrup Police Station for offences Shantanu S. Dhudum SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Digitally signed by SHANTANU SHANKARSA DHUDUM Date: 2026.10.01 12:42:23 +0530 2/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC punishable under Sections 108, 80, 85 read with Section 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 3. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Applicant, states that there are two (2) accused in the present crime. The Applicant (Accused No. 2) is the brother-in-law of the deceased, whereas Accused No. 1 in Crime No. 324 of 2026 is the husband of the deceased. 4. In brief, the case of the prosecution is that the deceased (Saroja Amol Chavan) was harassed by Accused No. 1 (husband) and the Applicant by assaulting her and taking suspicion on the character of the deceased. This led to the deceased committing suicide. 5. Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits that if considered, the allegations indicate abuse, assault, etc., against Accused No. 1 (husband). He submits that the Applicant does not reside in the matrimonial house of the deceased. He submits that the FIR refers to the Applicant raising suspicion about the character of the deceased. He submits that, apart from the said allegations, which, according to Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, are vague, there is no other material indicating that the Applicant could have caused the deceased to take such a drastic step to end her life. He states that the Applicant is ready to appear before the Investigating Officer and fully co-operate with the investigation of Crime No. 324 of 2026. Shantanu S. Dhudum 3/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC 6. Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State, submits that the FIR names the Applicant as having doubted the character of the deceased. 7. Ms. Smita Shinde, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3, submits that the deceased, a mother of two minors, was compelled to end her life in view of the allegations against her character by the Accused No.1(husband) and the Applicant. She further submits that the minor children of the deceased are presently with Respondent No. 3. 8. Perused the record with the assistance of the learned Advocates for the parties. 9. A perusal of the FIR indicates that the allegations against the Applicant are that the Applicant raised suspicion about the character of the deceased. The Applicant is the brother-in-law of the deceased, who, as stated by Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde, did not reside with the deceased either before her suicide or at any point in time. This statement of Mr. Hrishikesh Shinde is not contested by Mr. S. H. Yadav, learned A.P.P. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Das Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.1, in paragraph Nos. 7 to 12 has observed as follows :- 1 2025 OnLine SC 120 Shantanu S. Dhudum 4/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC 7. Section 306 IPC is reproduced below for ready reference: “306. Abetment of suicide. - If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.” We must read Section 306 IPC with Section 107 IPC which defines ‘Abetment’; and it reads as below: “107. Abetment of a thing. - A person abets the doing of a thing, who— First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 8. When Section 306 IPC is read with Section 107 IPC, it is clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of Shantanu S. Dhudum 5/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC suicide; along with (iii) clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide. 9. The Appellant has placed strong reliance upon the judgment in Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. State of Maharashtra, wherein this Court has interpreted Sections 306 and 107 IPC together and observed: “8. Reading these sections together would indicate that there must be either an instigation, or an engagement or intentional aid to ‘doing of a thing’. When we apply these three criteria to Section 306, it means that the accused must have encouraged the person to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy with others to encourage the person to commit suicide or acted (or failed to act) intentionally to aid the person to commit suicide. … 13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant. The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide. There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her husband.” 10. In Prakash v. State of Maharashtra, this Court has further interpreted the offence as below: “13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients- first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied. 14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is Shantanu S. Dhudum 6/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she would have no other option but to commit suicide.” 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to refer to cases that define the act of ‘instigation’. Accordingly, in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, this Court observed: “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.” 12. Reliance is to be placed upon Pawan Kumar v. State of H.P., wherein the Supreme Court held: “43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life.” 11. Prima facie, the material showing that the Applicant instigated or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide or conspired with Accused Shantanu S. Dhudum 7/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC No.1 to encourage the deceased to commit suicide or committed an intentional act (or omission) to aid the deceased in committing suicide, is lacking. The allegations made against the Applicant in the F.I.R. may amount to harassment. 12. In view of the above, the custodial interrogation of the Applicant is not required. 13. This Application is allowed on the following terms and conditions: ORDER A) In the event of arrest of the Applicant - Rahul Dattatray Chavan, in connection with Crime No.324 of 2026 registered at Mandrup Police Station, the Applicant shall be released on bail on furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) with one or two sureties in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer, Mandrup Police Station. B) The Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer, Mandrup Police Station, investigating Crime No.324 of 2026, on 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th October, 2026 from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00, and thereafter as and when required Shantanu S. Dhudum 8/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC by the Investigating Officer. The Applicant shall co- operate with the investigation. C) The Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person/s acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade such person/s from disclosing the facts to the Court or any police officer. D) The Applicant shall not tamper with the evidence and shall not influence the witnesses, in any manner. E) The Applicant shall provide the Investigation Officer with his residential address along with proof, his contact number and must inform the Investigating Officer of any changes to this information from time to time. 14. The High Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, Circuit Bench at Kolhapur, shall quantify and pay the legal fees payable under the Legal Aid Scheme to Advocate Ms. Smita Shinde, who has appeared and represented Respondent No. 3 in this Application. 15. The observations made in this order are prima facie confined to the case of the Applicant for deciding the Bail Application and will not affect the trial. Shantanu S. Dhudum 9/9 918-ABA-528-2026 (CR).DOC 16. Criminal Anticipatory Bail Application No.528 of 2026 is disposed of. ( ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.) Shantanu S. Dhudum