Case Name: Abhijit Dilip Garad v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No. 4141 of 2026
Date: Tuesday, Third of November, Two Thousand and Twenty-Six
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay
Coram: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
FACTS
The applicant, Abhijit Dilip Garad, aged 37 years, was working as a lecturer at D. Y. Patil Engineering College, Pune. He was accused No. 1 in FIR bearing Crime No. 403/2026, registered at Chandannagar Police Station, Pune City, for offences under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). His wife, aged 40 years, died by suicide. The FIR was lodged by her brother, who was serving as an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police.
The applicant married the deceased on 13th July 2025. After marriage, the couple resided in a joint family with the applicant’s parents, brother and sister-in-law. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed by her mother-in-law and sister-in-law, who taunted her and prevented her from using certain household articles. The accusations levelled against the accused were that he was spending inadequate time with his wife, and avoided taking her out and meeting relatives with her and also tried to resist her efforts in establishing intimacy.
The family moved to a different flat in Chandannagar about one month prior to the occurrence of the incident. The argument is said to have happened on 13.09.2026, when the deceased threatened to kill herself if he did not listen to her. The applicant allegedly responded by saying that she could do whatever she wanted and subsequently left the house to visit his brother. The deceased later contacted her maternal uncle, complained about harassment by her in-laws and died by suicide by hanging. The applicant discovered her body upon returning home. He was arrested on 17.09.2026. The other four co-accused, comprising his father, brother, sister-in-law and mother, had already been granted anticipatory bail.
LEGAL ISSUES
- Whether the actions and words of the accused during the domestic quarrel were aiding and abetting suicide as per Section 108 of the BNS.
- Whether lack of companionship, non-spending enough time with spouse, and not going out with them constituted cruelty as per Section 85 of the BNS.
- Whether custody inquiry of the applicant for investigation was required and if he was entitled to bail.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 108 of BNS, 2023: Stipulates the punishment for the abetment of suicide and prescribes that if the offense of suicide has been committed by the abettor, then the person will have to serve a term of imprisonment and pay a fine for the same.
- Section 85 of BNS, 2023: Prescribes punishment for any cruelty meted out by the husband and relation of the husband towards the wife.
- Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023: Makes several persons collectively liable for commission of a criminal offense with the same intention of committing the crime collectively.
- Section 483 of BNSS, 2023: Gives power to the High Court and Court of Sessions to provide bail and special bail
ARGUMENTS
APPLICANT: In approaching the High Court for granting him bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, the applicant was represented by his lawyer, Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil. The grounds of arguments put forth by the applicant are not separately set out in the order.
STATE (RESPONDENT): The State, through the Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Shilpa Talhar, strongly opposed the bail application on the basis of the FIR and statements of the witnesses regarding the harassment and fight just before the suicide of the deceased. It maintained the allegations against the applicant and opposed his release on bail.
ANALYSIS
The Court observed that the specific allegations concerning household harassment were primarily attributed to the mother-in-law and sister-in-law. However, the couple had shifted to a separate residence one month before the incident, which was considered a significant circumstance.
Regarding abetment to suicide, the Court held that a direct and intentional act of instigation, having proximity to the incident, must be established. The words allegedly uttered during an argument in a domestic dispute, “do whatever you want”, and then the applicant walking out of the house did not prima facie prove intentional instigation and conspiracy. The Court observed that words spoken in anger cannot automatically be treated as a positive act driving someone to commit suicide.
On cruelty, the Court observed that not spending sufficient time with one’s spouse or not taking them outside prima facie indicated marital discord. However, there were no allegations of force, violence, abuse or unlawful demands for money or articles against the applicant. The Court also noted that the deceased had not raised any complaint during their approximately 14 months of cohabitation.
Further, the applicant had no criminal antecedents, had deep roots in society and no recovery was pending from him. Consequently, custodial interrogation was considered unnecessary.
JUDGEMENT
The Bombay High Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant’s release upon furnishing a Personal Recognisance (P.R.) Bond of Rs. 15,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.
The Court has put several conditions upon the applicant including reporting to the Investigating Officer on the first Sunday of each month, cooperating with the investigation and trial, appearing before the Court, not interfering with any witness or evidence and not leaving the state of Maharashtra without permission from the Trial Court. Non-compliance with these conditions would lead to withdrawal of the bail.
CONCLUSION
This judgment brings out the difference between common marital disputes and abetment to suicide. The Court has reaffirmed that the words uttered in a rage during domestic disputes, without any direct and intention instigation, cannot be considered abetment to suicide. The Court has stressed that while deciding bail application, specific allegation, evidence and necessity of custody interrogation should be taken into account. The observations of the Court are only prima facie and will not affect the proceeding.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY- PRIYANSHI CHOUDHARY
