1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3124 OF 2009 Nisar Ismail Waghoo .. Applicant. Vs. State of Maharashtra .. Respondents. Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Sr.Counsel i/b Hrishikesh Mundargi for the applicant. Mr.S.S.Pednekar A.P.P. for the State. Coram : D.B. BHOSALE, J. Dated : 16TH JULY, 2009 P.C. Heard learned senior counsel for the applicant and learned A.P.P. for the State. 2. The applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in C.R.No.I-159 of 2009 of Byculla Police Station, Mumbai. The crime has been registered against the applicant for having allegedly committed an offence punishable under sections 306 of IPC. 3. The applicant and the deceased were business partners. The complainant is a wife of the deceased. The deceased committed suicide on 30.3.2009. After 20 days from the date of incident the complainant presented a suicide note, allegedly 2 written by the deceased before committing suicide, to the Byculla police station. On the basis of the suicide note it is alleged that the applicant was constantly harassing the deceased. It appears that the applicant had made complaints to the Bombay Municipal Corporation, to the authorities under MRTP Act and to the police. In the suicide note the deceased has stated that the applicant used to black-mail him in order to obtain his signatures on stamp paper showing settlement with him in the presence of one Chaturvedi. The deceased also made specific reference to the complaint, allegedly made by the applicant, under the provisions of MRTP Act, in the suicide note. That all, according to the prosecution caused mental harassment to the deceased which ultimately drove him to commit suicide. 4. Mr.Mundargi, learned senior counsel for the applicant, submitted that merely because the complaints were made to the statutory authorities, the applicant cannot be stated to have abated the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted, it is true that one criminal case under section 406 of IPC at the instance of the applicant was pending against the deceased. But, according to Mr.Mundargi, there were in all 17 cases of similar nature pending against the deceased and which were filed by different persons and to which the applicant had no concern. He placed a list of all the 17 cases before the court. He further 3 submitted that it is equally true that the applicant had made one complaint dated 17.3.2008 to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Vigilance) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation. That complaint was, however, withdrawn by him on 4.3.2000 i.e. before the deceased committed suicide on 30.3.2009. Mr.Mundargi, then, invited my attention to the notice under section 53(1) of MRTP Act dated 28.7.2004, and submitted that the applicant had no concern with the said notice issued by the concerned authority under the Act. It is against this backdrop Mr.Mundargi submitted that the applicant cannot be stated to have abated the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that as a matter of fact the wife has given true and correct reason for her husband to commit suicide in the FIR. In the FIR dated 7.7.2009, the complainant has specifically stated that just before committing suicide her husband was seen under tension and pressure of the business and that he had become bankrupt. Taking recourse to the remedies available in law against any person, even if such action causes harassment to the person, according to Mr.Mundargi, cannot be stated to be an abatement to commit suicide. Having considered the submissions of Mr.Mundargi and having gone through the material placed before the court, in my opinion, custodial interrogation of the applicant is not necessary. Hence the following order: In the event of arrest, applicant be released 4 on bail in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties to make up the said amount, subject to the conditions incorporated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Further, the applicant shall report to the concerned police station on every alternate day between 11 am and 1 pm till 31st July, 2009, and thereafter on every Saturday between 6 pm and 7 pm for a period of 90 days from today or till filing of the chargesheet, whichever is earlier. While passing this order I shall not be understood to have expressed any opinion on merits of the case and the trial Court shall deal with the case uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. Application is disposed of. (D. B. Bhosale, J.)