909.ABA-750.26.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 750 OF 2026 Nilesh Dattatraya Jejurkar … Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondents ______________________ Mr. Aniket Nikam a/w Ms. Abhilasha Pawar i/by Mr. Sumit Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for the Respondent-State. Mr. Abaysinhn Bhosale a/w Mr. Ankur Pahade (through VC) a/w Mr. Sanjay Kokane for Respondent No.2. Mr. B.P. Patil, PSI attached to Gangapur Police Station, Nashik. ______________________ CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10 SEPTEMBER 2026 P. C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicant and the learned APP for the Respondent-State. 2. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Applicant is seeking pre- arrest bail in connection with C.R. No.118 of 2026 registered with Gangapur Police Station, Nashik for the offences punishable under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Page 1 PPN PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Digitally signed by PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.09.11 10:35:10 +0530 909.ABA-750.26.DOC 3. It is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the Applicant is not involved in the crime. He submits that as per the settled legal position, in order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023), there must be material that Accused person has contributed to the suicide committed by the deceased by some direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. He submits that such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear intention to compel the deceased to commit suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he or she would have no other option but to commit suicide. 4. It is submitted that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action proximate 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 of the IPC is not sustainable. He submitted that to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 of IPC, 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. Page 2 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC 5. It is submitted that merely because the victim was continuously harassed and at one point, he or she succumbed to the extreme act of taking his or her life, it cannot by itself, result in a finding of positive instigation constituting abetment. Mens rea cannot be claimed merely by what goes on in the mind of the victim. It is submitted that what constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances which, in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the Accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide is the sure test. 6. To substantiate these contentions, the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant relies on judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Shivakumar versus State of Maharashtra1. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Kumar versus State of Haryana2, and more particularly on paragraph nos.23 and 25 which reads as under :- “23. Had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. 1 2026 SCC OnLine SC 153 2 2024 (3) SCC 573 Page 3 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC A person intends a consequence when he: (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused’s mind (a “subjective” test).” “25. It is now well settled that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. Mere harassment is not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of abetting the commission of suicide. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide. The ingredient of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous.” 7. It is submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court concerning abetment of suicide, even if the entire case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also it cannot be said that the Applicant foresaw that the said incident of suicide would happen and that he desires the same to happen. He submits that there is no mens rea to commit the offence. He, therefore, submitted that the Applicant is a doctor and he is looking after his two daughters. He submitted that unfortunately, his wife-deceased has died by suicide, however, there is no mens rea and, therefore, Anticipatory Bail Application be allowed. 8. On the other hand, the learned APP submitted that as the Applicant was having relationship outside marriage with one doctor Swati Chavan who is working as head of Psychiatry Page 4 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC department in Civil Hospital, Nashik where the Applicant is also working as a Psychiatist, the deceased was coninuously harrassed. Learned APP submitted that in fact said Swati Chavan was also harassing the deceased. He submitted that in this background, when there is a marriage of cousin sister of the deceased on 5 March 2026, the Applicant came to the said marriage, however, he refused to get family photograph with the deceased and insulted the deceased in front of all her relatives and immediately on 6 March 2026, in the morning, the incident took place. Therefore, he submitted that there is mens rea and the incident has taken place in close proximity with the said insulting behaviour of the Applicant towards deceased. 9. The learned APP also submitted that in fact, investigation is necessary as there are some aspects which show that the crime may not be of suicide but of murder. He stated that the Post Mortem (PM) was also performed at the Civil Hospital, Nashik where the Applicant is working as a doctor in a Psychiatry department. He submitted that the allegation is that the Applicant has relationship outside marriage with the another doctor i.e., doctor Swati Chavan, who is working as head of Psychiatry Page 5 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC department in Civil Hospital Nashik and there is every possibility that Post Mortem also may not be accurate and, therefore, investigation is necessary. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 i.e. First Informant submitted that there are grave doubts about the incident concerning suicide. He states that the photograph of the incident in question shows that the rope was found to be attached to the window. Thus, it is highly impossible that the incident of suicide is possible by the manner in which it is suggested. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that although an allegation is made concerning the relationship outside marriage with said doctor Swati Chavan, however, the same is not admitted by the Applicant. 12. Perusal of the record shows that both Applicant and the deceased were taking treatment as both of them are suffering from depression. The F.I.R. specifically records that for the last two years, the said doctor Swati Chavan was frequently coming to the house of the Applicant and the deceased informed to the First Informant in or about December 2025 that the Applicant is having relationship outside marriage with doctor Swati Chavan who is the Page 6 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC head of Psychiatry department in Civil Hospital, Nashik where the Applicant is also working as psychiatrist doctor. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Applicant that the relationship is not admitted, however, the statement of Dr. Monali Samir Deshpande dated 9 April 2026 from whom the Applicant and the deceased, both of them, were taking treatment indicates about said relationship. 13. It is relevant to note that in the F.I.R., it is stated that said Swati Chavan has also called the deceased in or about January 2026 and stated as under :- तु आता तुझ्या नवऱ्याला आवडत नाही, तुझ्यात दोष आहे, तु वाईट आहे, तुझे शिक्षण कमी असून तु अल्पबुध्दी आहे. त्यामुळे हे सव$ घडत आहे." The English translation of above is as under :- Your husband doesn't like you anymore, the fault lies with you, you are a bad person, you are uneducated and unintelligent, that is why all this is happening." 14. The F.I.R. records that on 5 March 2026, although the Applicant attended the marriage of cousin sister of the deceased, Page 7 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC he refused to get family photograph and insulted the deceased in front of all her relatives and the incident of death of deceased by suicide has taken place on 6 March 2026. Thus, it is clear that even the criterias which are set out in the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Vinod Shivakumar (supra) and in Naresh Kumar (supra) are made applicable to the facts of the present case, then also it is prima facie seen that there is mens rea for the commission of the crime. 15. Perusal of the records shows that there is continuous harassment on account of the Applicant's relationship outside marriage and the incident has taken place on 6 March 2026, immediately after 5 March 2026, when the Applicant has insulted the deceased in front of her relatives and refused to get family photograph inter alia with the deceased. 16. There is also substance in the contention raised by the learned APP and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 that the incident may not be of suicide but of murder and, therefore, custodial interrogation is necessary. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Nikita Jagganath Shetty alias Nikita Vishwajeet Jadhav versus State of Maharashtra3, has 3 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1489 Page 8 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC held that the anticipatory bail is an exceptional remedy and ought not to be granted in a routine manner. There must exist strong reasons for extending indulgence of this extraordinary remedy to a person accused of grave offence. It has been further held that while exercising power to grant pre-arrest bail, the Court has to be very cautious as the grant of interim protection or protection to the accused in serious cases may lead to miscarriage of justice and may hamper the investigation to a great extent as it may sometimes lead to tampering or distraction of the evidence. 18. In the decision of State v. Anil Sharma4, the Supreme Court, while setting aside the Order of pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, has held that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconded with a favourable order under Section 438 of CrPC. It has been held that effective interrogation of suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disintering many useful information and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. It has been further held 4 (1997) 7 SCC 187 Page 9 PPN 909.ABA-750.26.DOC that very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. 19. In any case, apart from the aspect that prima facie the Applicant is involved in the crime of abetment of suicide, there are certain indications showing that the case may be one of commission of offence of murder. 20. In the facts and circumstances, no case is made out for grant of Anticipatory Bail. Accordingly the Anticipatory Bail Application is dismissed. 21. Request is made for stay of this order for a period of three weeks, however, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the said request is rejected. [MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.] Page 10 PPN