The court emphasized the importance of specific instances and evidence in allegations of harassment and referred to the settled law for the charge under Section 306 of the IPC.

ORDER :

1. By way of the present application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the applicant - accused has prayed for anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No. 11216025210146 of 2021 registered with Santej Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar. for the offences under Sections 306, 498A, 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to file the present application is that, the applicant has been charged with Sections 306, 498A, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC. Marriage of the deceased with the present applicant was solemnized on 10.10.2008 and thereafter, they resided in joint family. In the year 2012, the girl child ’Prutha’ was borne. The applicant herein is MD Gynecology by profession, whereas, the deceased Manish did her MD and joined GCS Hospital as Tutor in the year 2010-11 and since then, she had worked there. It is alleged in the FIR that after sometime of marriage i.e. since 2012, the deceased Manisha was subjected to physical and mental harassment by the applicant and in-laws. It is alleged in the FIR that the accused did not like the birth of girl, as they wanted a male child. It is not in dispute that after the birth of the daughter, the applicant and deceased were resided independently at the first floor of the house, whereas, the coaccused resided in the ground floor. In the year 2020, deceased and applicant shifted to their new flat at Shantigram, Water Lily, Ahmedabad and after sometime, father-in-law and mother-in-law, shifted there in new house and resided together. It is alleged in the FIR that the applicant was harassing the deceased by suspecting on her character, saying that he will create forged DNA report to establish that the biological father of the daughter is someone else and not the applicant herein. On 08.04.2021, the deceased Manisha committed suicide by hanging herself at new flat as referred in the FIR. The brother of the deceased lodged an FIR alleging that she had been subjected to mental and physical cruelty by her husband and in-laws, as a result, deceased had committed the suicide. It is alleged in the FIR that the act of the accused amounts to instigation and intentionally they have abetted for alleged suicide.

3. This Court has heard Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. S.S. Amin, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned advocate for the original informant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent State.

4. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. N.D. Nanavaty, urged following submissions :

(i) Referring to the facts of the FIR, he submitted that present FIR has been lodged by the brother of the deceased after delay of almost 20 days and it is nothing but a figment of imagination of the complainant and nothing has ever transpired, as alleged in the FIR. Since last 13 years, the applicant and deceased were peacefully leaving together and their marriage life was very much happy and there was no any domestic issue as alleged in the FIR.

(ii) It was submitted that deceased was also a doctor by profession and if there had been any instances of harassment, in that event, deceased would have lodged the criminal complaint. It was further urged that, after purchasing the house property, there was a plan to start their private practice, for which, commercial property was purchased in the Shantigram Township itself, so that they could start their private practice. In this circumstances, prima-facie, no case is made out, as facts and circumstances do not in any way indicate that alleged act would constitute abetment to commit suicide.

(iii) It was submitted that the allegations leveled against the applicant for making forged DNA report, itself shows that, the present FIR is nothing but a vague imagination of complainant as at the time of incident, daughter was 9 years old and therefore, if there had been any doubt, as alleged, the present applicant would have not waited for 9 years. On the aspect of having mal