IN THE HON’BLE COURT OF SESSIONS JUDGE, PUNE

AT PUNE

Cri Bail Appln No: /2024

C.R. NO – 803/2023 PUNE RAILWAY POL. STN.
Session Case No.: 190/2024

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….. COMPLAINANT

V/s.

1) ARJUN RAJARAM AVASHETTY

AGE: 62 years,
R/at: 830, Bhavani Peth, Pune

2) KAVITA ARJUN AVASHETTY

AGE: 51 years,
R/at: 830, Bhavani Peth, Pune ….. ACCUSED

REPLY TO ARGUMENT
ADVANCED BY THE PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR THAT,

1. The Accused namely ARJUN RAJARAM AVASHETTY &

KAVITA ARJUN AVASHETTY at present languishing at

Yerwada Central Prison have approached this Hon’ble

Court with profound respect, asserting their innocence

against the charges levelled upon them.

2. The on 12/12/2023 Applicant No. 1 Arjun RAJARAM

AVASHETTY & Applicant No. 2 KAVITA ARJUN

 AVASHETT came to be arrested in connection with an

offence registered at Pune Railway Police Station vide

C.R. No. 803/2023, under section 306, 34 OF IPC. The

investigation has been concluded and chargesheet has

been filed and the case has been committed to this

Hon’ble Court.

3. That the accused being in judicial custody have preferred

and application under section 439 of Cr. P.C. for their

release on bail.

4. That on 26/04/2024 the written arguments on behalf of

the Applicants/Accused were filed in the hon’ble court

and on 04/05/2024 the public prosecutor had made his

oral arguments in front of this court.

5. That to submit reply to the arguments advanced by the

public prosecutor and to seek release of the

accused/applicants on following amongst the other

grounds thereto:-

a. Nothing on record to prove any abetment.

That the present applicant has not committed any wilful

act or omission nor intentionally aided or instigated the

deceased to commit suicide. the reasons i.e A. lodging of

FIR and B. previous dispute will not be grounds for

committing suicide to any man of ordinary prudence.

That there is no direct and alarming

encouragement/incitement by the applicants leaving no

option but to commit to suicide.

In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal, Justice

Mukundakam Sharma, the apex court had observed that

“It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged

abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect

acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on

the allegation of harassment without there being any

positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the

part of the accused which led or compelled the person to

commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is

not sustainable.”

Also in S S Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, the apex

court, observed: “Abetment involves a mental process of

instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in

doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the

 accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,

conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the

legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court

is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306

IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence.

It also requires an active act or direct act which led the

deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act

must have been intended to push the deceased into such a

position that he committed suicide.”

The deceased had burst firecrackers in front of the

applicant's house, leading to the lodging of an FIR

against him. In the statement provided by the

complainant, it was acknowledged that the deceased

admitted to setting off firecrackers late at night and even

apologized for it. In light of this, the applicants, in filing

the said FIR against the deceased, by any means did not

instigate or aid in committing suicide.

b. Merely being named in suicide note would not by

itself establish guilt of accused

That in the present case even if the suicide note is

believed to be true, it does not contain any elements of

Section 306 read with Section 107 of the law, which

could be interpreted against the current applicants.

That in Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat it was

specifically a case which arose in the context of a petition

under Section 482 of the CrPC where the Hon’ble High

Court had dismissed the petition for quashing an FIR

registered for offences under Sections 306 and 294(B) of

the IPC. In that case, the FIR was registered on a

complaint of the spouse of the deceased who was working

as a driver with the accused. The driver had been

rebuked by the employer and was later found to be dead

on having committed suicide. A suicide note was relied

upon in the FIR, the contents of which indicated that the

driver had not been given a fixed vehicle unlike other

drivers besides which he had other complaints including

the deduction of 15 days' wages from his salary. The

suicide note named the accused-appellant. In the

decision of a two judge Bench of this Court, delivered by

Hon’ble Justice V S Sirpurkar, the test laid down in

Bhajan Lal (supra) was applied and the Court held:

“10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in

this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be

viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC.

We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called

suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to

commit suicide. In such matters there must be an

allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to

commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other

person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in

any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about

the suicide.

11. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination

of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the

suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a

departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental

imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself

describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it

cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the

driver under him should commit suicide or should end his

life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted

that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the

accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to

keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not

mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver

should commit suicide because of this." Dealing with the

provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of

abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court

observed:

12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC

specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on

the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the

suicide of the person concerned as a result of that

abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or

to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a

must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We

are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there

being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC

either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.”

The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state

of anguish of the deceased and cannot be depicted as

 expressing anything intentional on the part of the

accused that the deceased might commit suicide.

Reversing the judgement of the High Court, the petition

under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was

quashed.

c. Factors to be considered by the Hon’ble Court while

considering application for grant of bail

That in ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI V. STATE OF

MAHARASHTRA the apex court has observed that

“57. While considering an application for the grant of bail

under Article 226 in a suitable case, the High Court must

consider the settled factors which emerge from the

precedents of this Court. These factors can be summarized

as follows:

(i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the

accusation and the severity of the punishment in the

case of a conviction;

(ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of

the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a

threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the

accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused

fleeing from justice;

(iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are

peculiar to the accused;

(v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are

made out, on the basis of the allegations as they

stand, in the FIR; and

(vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and

other similar considerations.

58.These principles have evolved over a period of time and

emanate from the following (among other) decisions:

Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi; Ram Govind Upadhyay

v. Sudarshan Singh; State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi;

Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee; Sanjay

Chandra v. CBI; and P. Chidambaram v. Central Bureau

of Investigation.”
 That in the present case, a prima facie evaluation of the

FIR does not establish the ingredients of the offence of

abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. The

appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight

risk during the investigation or the trial. There is no

apprehension of tampering of evidence or witnesses.

It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed before this

Hon’ble Court that –

(a) Bail Application may kindly and graciously be allowed.

(b) Applicants may kindly be released on bail owing to the

wide discretionary powers vested with this Hon’ble Court.

(c) Any other order in the interests of justice may kindly

be passed.

Pune

Date – 08/05/2024 Adv. for Accused