1 CAG-3265.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE - CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3265 OF 2010 Tukaram Vitthal Shelke .... Applicant Vs. The State .... Respondent S/Shri O.A. Siddiqui and Rajendra Rathod for the Applicant. Ms P.P. Shinde, APP, for the State. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3151 OF 2010 Sanjaykumar P. Pathak .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri A.A. Kumbhakoni with V.V. Purwant for the Applicant. Ms S.D. Shinde, APP, for the State. AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3230 OF 2010 Popat Vamanrao Kapase .... Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent S/Shri S.V. Kotwal with Siddharth R. Karpe for the Applicant. 2 CAG-3265.10 Ms S.D. Shinde, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 26, 2010 P.C: 1. These three applications for bail are filed by three officers from the Forest Department who are said to have been instrumental in provoking one Omprakash Hiremath to commit suicide. The facts which are relevant for deciding these three applications are as under: 2. One of the applicants, Pathak, was serving as Conservator of Forest at Pune and the two other applicants Shelke and Kapase were serving under him. The victim Omprakash was P.A. of a former Member of the Legislative Assembly. Under the signature of Pathak, an advertisement was issued for recruitment in the Forest Department. Suresh Dattatraya Tale, Nagesh Malinath Bhandarkavthe, Santosh Mahadeo Barure, Ambadas Ramchandra Bagle and Vijaykumar Iranna Hiremath were the prospective candidates who had applied for recruitment. Deceased Omprakash had stated that he knew Pathak and 3 CAG-3265.10 therefore he could get the needful done. These five persons, therefore, agreed to pay sums which Omprakash is stated to have demanded on behalf of Pathak. Parts of the amounts were collected and handed over to Shelke on 24-10-2009. Pathak was stated to be in a white car which was parked at some distance from the place where this transaction took place. Again on 13-11-2009 some further sums were received by Shelke. The boys, however, did not get any employment and their names did not figure in the list of selected candidates. The candidates as well as Omprakash are alleged to have approached the trio but were warded off. Eventually, on 22-3-2010 Omprakash committed suicide. He left a suicide note specifically stating that he had paid a sum of Rs.8,75,000/- collected from the five candidates himself to Phatak and yet Phatak did not employ those persons. He states that when he went to see Pathak, Pathak even refused to recognise him and, therefore, he was driven to commit suicide, fearing defamation. Thereafter, a report was lodged and investigation commenced. In the course of the investigation, the police recorded statements of the five candidates. All of them said that monies were actually received on two occasions by Shelke. They did not state 4 CAG-3265.10 having seen Phatak. They refer to Kapase s presence on both the occasions but do not state that Kapase participated in the transaction. The investigation in the case is over and charge-sheet has been filed. Two of the applicants are in jail since 31-3-2010 and the third is in jail since 12-4-2010. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the applicants, the learned APPs for the State as well as the learned counsel representing the victim s family members. The learned counsel for the applicant Kapase pointed out that Kapase had absolutely no role to play in the entire transaction and he was merely present. Therefore, there is no question of Kapase being kept behind bars. The learned APP also could not point out complicity of Kapase in any of these events. Therefore, Criminal Application No.3230 of 2010 would have to be allowed. 4. As far as Shelke and Pathak are concerned, learned senior counsel appearing for Pathak drew my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), reported in 2010 All MR (Cri.) 1331 in support of his contention that the act attributed to Pathak could not 5 CAG-3265.10 amount to abetment to commit suicide. He submitted that Pathak had neither instigated the victim to commit suicide nor had engaged in any conspiracy to abet the commission of suicide by the victim. It is, however, significant that though before the Supreme Court what was challenged was the framing of charge of offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge at Delhi, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal leaving the charge as it was. The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh {(2001) 9 SCC 618}, observed in paras 14 and 15 of the judgment in Chitresh Kumar Chopra s case (supra) that abetment could also be by acts or by a continued course of conduct creating such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. The learned APP as well as the learned counsel for the victim s family members submitted that the conduct of Pathak and Shelke in shrugging themselves off after taking money was such as to leave the deceased with no other option but to commit suicide. This aspect may best be gone into at the trial by the learned trial Judge. It cannot be said that the judgment in Chitresh Kumar Chopra s case would be decisive of the 6 CAG-3265.10 complicity of the applicants in the suicide committed by Omprakash. 5. The learned counsel also placed reliance on two judgments of this Court in Shriram Vishwanathji Milkewar v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 46 and Santosh Nathumal Goenka & another v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2010 (1) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 233. In both the cases, this Court has held that the acts attributed to the applicants therein could not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In Shriram Vishwanathji Milkewar s case (supra), money had been paid by the victim for securing employment. The Court observed that assuming that the accused did not provide employment, it would not amount to abetment to commit suicide. In Santosh Nathumal Goenka s case (supra), the victim had been continuously subjected to demand for repayment of the money which according to the victim had been repaid many times. The victim committed suicide because of these demands. The Court held that the suicide could not be considered as a sequel to the persistent demands. 6. As observed by the Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra s case, relying upon the 7 CAG-3265.10 judgment in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (supra), the question as to what triggered suicide by a person would depend on the facts of each case and the state of mind of the person concerned and, therefore, it cannot be said that the two judgments of this Court lay down any proposition of law that in such cases invariably an inference that there was no abetment to commit suicide should be drawn. This, too, has to be left to be decided at the trial. 7. The learned counsel for the other two applicants pointed out that the suicide note makes no reference to Shelke and puts the entire blame on Pathak. Omprakash had not stated having paid anything to Shelke. In fact, he claimed to have paid Pathak by his own hands. The learned counsel points out that the evidence of the five candidates who had been duped is to the contrary and the amounts are shown to have been paid to Shelke and the candidates have not even seen Pathak. The candidates were present when Omprakash caused monies to be paid to Shelke. Now this discrepancy too is something which is to be left to be decided by the learned trial Judge. It is not necessary to comment upon this 8 CAG-3265.10 discrepancy at this stage. 8. Since the investigation is complete, charge-sheet has been filed and since none of the offences with which the applicants are charged with is punishable with imprisonment for life and the maximum punishment to which the applicants could be sentenced to suffer imprisonment is for 10 years, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the applicants behind bars till they are tried, particularly since all the applicants are Government servants and are not likely to run away or be unavailable for trial. 9. The learned APP expressed apprehension that since Pathak is a high ranking officer, he is likely to influence the witnesses and tamper with the evidence. The evidence against Pathak is in the form of a suicide note. Therefore, it is doubtful as to how Pathak could influence this evidence. In any case, this apprehension could be taken care of by imposing suitable conditions. 10. In view of the above, all the three applications are allowed; the applicants in all the applications be released on bail on their 9 CAG-3265.10 furnishing P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- each with one or more solvent surety in the like amount in each of these applications. The applicants shall attend Yerawade Police Station, Pune, on every first Sunday of the month in between 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. till the trial is over. The applications stand disposed of. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)