IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 184 OF 2021

1.

Babasaheb s/o Bapurao Kamble,

Age : 40 years, occu. Service,

R/o Pimpri, Tq. Gangakhed,

District Parbhani

2.

Limbaji s/o Kabaji @ Kabir Bhise,

Age : 55 years, Occu. Agri.,

R/o Pimpri, Tq. Gangakhed,

District Parbhani

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station,

Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani

RESPONDENT

AND

ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2021

Aadesh s/o Ajay Rudrawar,

Age : 22 years, Occu. Education,

R/o Sarafa Market, Bhagwati Chowk,

Gangakhed , Tq. Gangakhed,

District Parbhani, at present

Chacha Nehru Balgruha,

Near Lalbahadur Shastri School,

Captain Chowk, Degloor Road,

Udgir, Tq. Udgir, District Latur

APPLICANT

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra,

through Police Station,

Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani

RESPONDENT

2

ABA184-185-2021

----

Mr. S.J. Salunke, Advocate for the applicants

Mr. S.W. Mundhe, A.P.P. for the respondent/State

Mr. P.V. Khiste, Advocate to assist the A.P.P.

----

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, J.

DATE :

07.04.2021

PER COURT :

These are separate applications by three different accused from

Crime No.47 of 2021, registered with Gangakhed Police Station, District

Parbhani for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34

of the Indian Penal Code, seeking bail under Section 438 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure in the event of their arrest.

2.

The FIR has been lodged by the son of the deceased who

committed suicide by leaving behind couple of suicide notes attributing the

cause of suicide to the present applicants. It is alleged that because of the

dispute touching a land, the applicants – Babasaheb and Limbaji were

persistently harassing him. It is also alleged that he was indebted and the

money lender was insisting for payment of more money. It is being alleged

that it is the applicant – Aadesh and his brother had lent him money and

were persistently insisting for more money inspite of repayment of the loan

and triggered his suicide.

3.

Mr. S.J. Salunke, learned Advocate for the applicants in both the

3

ABA184-185-2021

applications would argue that the applicants are being falsely implicated on

mere suspicion. No offence of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the

Indian Penal Code can be made out even if the allegations are taken to be

true at their face value.

4.

The learned Advocate would submit that though previously some

crime was registered by the deceased against applicant Babasaheb, it was in

the year 2013 and for a long period of seven years, there was no dispute

between the two sides so that the deceased could have been harassed by the

applicants Babasaheb and Limbaji.

5.

As far as the applicant Aadesh and accused Vaibhav are

concerned, Mr. Salunke, learned Advocate points out that both of them are

students. In fact, Vaibhav is even a juvenile in conflict with law. It is

unlikely that they could have lend money to the deceased and could have

harassed him for repayment. Considering all the above mentioned facts and

circumstances and even the suicide notes attributing the applicants with

some acts, those cannot be taken as `instigation’ so as to constitute

`abetment’. The applicants are ready to cooperate the Investigating Officer.

There are no criminal antecedents except the FIR lodged against applicant

Babasaheb seven years back. The applicants would be put to disrepute if

they are sent to custody. The applicants, therefore, be granted anticipatory

bail.

4

ABA184-185-2021

6.

The learned A.P.P., assisted by the learned Advocate for the

original informant, submits that at this juncture, reference to the contents of

the suicide notes is sufficient to prima facie draw an inference regarding

involvement of the applicants in commission of the crime. The deceased

himself has attributed them having disturbed his mental peace by persistently

threatening him on account of land dispute and demanding more money

inspite of repayment of