Angry Words During Quarrel Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Bombay HC [Read Order]

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a husband booked under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 after his wife died by suicide, observing prima facie that words spoken in anger in a domestic quarrel, followed by his leaving the house, do not amount to instigation, and that abetment of suicide requires a direct and positive act in proximity to the incident.

Justice Milind N. Jadhav allowed the bail application of Abhijit Dilip Garad under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, in connection with Crime No. 403/2026 of Chandannagar Police Station, Pune City. The applicant, a 37-year-old lecturer at an engineering college in Pune, was arrested on 17.09.2026, four days after the incident of 13.09.2026. His father, brother, sister-in-law and mother, the other four accused, are protected by anticipatory bail orders of the High Court.

The FIR was lodged by the deceased’s brother, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The marriage was solemnised on 13.07.2025, and the applicant had an earlier marriage that ended in divorce. The prosecution alleged that the applicant subjected the victim to cruelty and abetted her suicide. Specific acts of harassment were attributed to the mother-in-law and the sister-in-law, such as not allowing her to touch certain household articles and taunting her. Against the applicant, the allegation was that he did not give her enough time, avoided taking her to relatives or outside, and pushed her away when she tried to come close.

The record showed that about a month before the incident the couple had shifted to a separate flat. On 13.09.2026 at about 2 pm there was a quarrel, in which the victim allegedly said she would commit suicide if he did not listen, and he retorted that she could do whatever she wanted. He left for his brother’s house at Hadapsar. The victim then called her maternal uncle complaining about her in-laws’ harassment, and the applicant found her on returning home.

The Court took note that the specific instances of harassment pertained to persons with whom the victim no longer lived, and called this “a very strong and important circumstance”. On abetment, it said:

“Abetment to suicide requires a direct act at the behest of the accused which would intentionally instigate the victim to commit suicide and most importantly such an act should be in proximity to the said incident and should be a positive act which comes directly from the demeanor and behavior of the accused person and cannot just be a reaction to a quarrel or words spoken in anger.”

The Court found that the FIR disclosed no such instigation or overt act by the applicant. On cruelty, it held prima facie that a spouse not giving time or not taking the other out are allegations of marital discord, which is understandable given the applicant’s work as a lecturer. It stressed that there was no force, violence or abuse, no time-bound demand for money or articles, and no complaint by the victim during 14 months of cohabitation. It also noted that there was no pending recovery from the applicant, that he has no antecedents, is highly qualified and has deep roots in society, and that the record prima facie showed the victim to be short-tempered and easily upset when he could not spend time, since his college was undergoing NAAC accreditation.

The Court added that the allegations against the other four accused lacked material specifics and proof, and that, despite the APP’s urging, a perusal of the witness statements did not persuade it otherwise. It held that custodial interrogation was not necessary.

The applicant was ordered to be released on a personal recognizance bond of ₹15,000 with one or two sureties of like amount, to report monthly to the Investigating Officer on the first Sunday of the month between 10 am and 12 noon, to attend trial, not to leave Maharashtra without the Trial Court’s permission, and not to influence witnesses or tamper with evidence. The Court clarified that its observations are prima facie and will not come in the way of the trial.

Appearances:

For the Applicant: Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, with Mr. Prithviraj Mundwadkar, Advocates.

For the State: Ms. Shilpa Talhar, APP. Also present: Mr. Parshram Chaudhari, Police Station officer.

Case Title: Abhijit Dilip Garad vs. The State of Maharashtra, Bail Application No. 4141 of 2026

[Read Order]