The F.I.R. itself shows that the deceased was taking treatment for his stress management. He was disturbed and in the disturbed state of mind he had committed suicide. So, there is possibility that his commission of suicide was a result of his mental state. Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide. The only serious allegation in the F.I.R. is about the applicant threatening the deceased about his prospects in career. Effect of such treats will be a matter of trial based on the evidence led before the court. Today, I am only deciding the question whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation in this background is necessary. The applicant is 71 years of age. It is doubtful whether the offence U/s.306 r/w. S.107 of IPC is made out. The main allegations are about the company setting big targets, not granting leave and not accepting the resignation.
These acts would be in the normal course of business. The
deceased was earning Rs.1,35,000/-p.m. He was working with the
company since the year 2001. The company had not stopped his
salary, even during the period of lockdown, as submitted by
learned senior counsel. All these factors also need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has made out a case for grant of anticipatory bail order in his favour. {Para 12}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 222 OF 2022
Dr. Surendra Manjrekar Vs The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2022
1. The Applicant is seeking anticipatory bail in connection
with C.R.No.913 of 2021 registered at Dadar Police Station, on
03/12/2021, under section 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code
(for short ‘IPC’).
2. Heard Shri. Ashok Mundargi, learned Senior Counsel
for the applicant, Shri. Rajesh More, learned counsel for the
Intervenor and Smt. Takalkar, learned APP for the State.
3. The First Information Report (for short ‘F.I.R.) is
lodged by one Minal Joshi who was the wife of the deceased Nikhil
Joshi, whose suicide is the subject matter of this investigation. The
informant has stated that the deceased was working with Sunanda
Specialty Coatings Pvt. Ltd. The applicant was a Director of that
company. The deceased was working with the company since 2001
and on the date of incident i.e. on 30/09/2021 the deceased was
earning salary of Rs.1,35,000/- p.m. The F.I.R. mentions that,
when the deceased had joined the company in the year 2001 the
applicant was happy with his performance and the company was
benefited greatly by the deceased’s hard work. In the year 2011,
the applicant’s son and daughter joined the company as Directors.
They were not happy with the prominence which the deceased was
getting and they were humiliating the deceased. The F.I.R.
mentions that, recently the company had implemented unfair
rules. The seniors were expected to join a standing meeting at
9.30a.m. daily. In that meeting the company used to give bigger
targets. The F.I.R. mentions that, in the meetings the deceased was
often humiliated. The deceased was working at a senior position
and, therefore, he was disturbed because of such treatment. The
company was not giving him basic facilities like driver for his
vehicle. The company was not giving him leave. The deceased had
started suffering from weakness and other medical ailments. He
was also taking treatment for his stress. According to the F.I.R., the
deceased had mentioned this to the applicant but the applicant
had ignored that. The informant had advised the deceased to leave
the company. At that time, the deceased had told her that, those
who had left the company had to face different cases. The
company had not given gratuity to them. Therefore, the deceased
was reluctant to leave the job.
4. On 25/09/2021, the deceased had requested the
applicant’s wife to sanction his leave. However, she told the
deceased to have a word with the applicant. The deceased tried to
talk with the applicant but the applicant did not respond and did
not return his call.
5. On 27/09/2021, the deceased was to give his
application for leave. The applicant asked him to wait in the
company office. The applicant did not come to the office. On
28/09/2021, when the deceased had come back from his job, he
looked frustrated and, therefore, everybody in the family
discussed the issue and it was decided that the deceased should
resign.
6. On 29/09/2021, the deceased approached the
applicant with resignation letter. At that time, the applicant did not
entertain him. He told the deceased that, he did not have time and
that the deceased was free to do whatever he wanted to do. The
applicant told the deceased that he would see to it that the
deceased would not get any other job. The deceased was
threatened regarding future of his career.
7. On 30/09/2021, the deceased went to the office. There
are allegations that, during lunch hours he was sitting with the
applicant and applicant’s son Saurabh. Within a short time after
that, the deceased jumped from the office building and committed
suicide. On this basis the F.I.R. was lodged.
8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant
submitted that, taking the allegations as they are, they would not
fall within the ambit of section 107 r/w. Section 306 of IPC. None
of the acts attributed to the applicant would amount to abetment
to commit suicide. He submitted that, during the lockdown the
company had suffered loss and, therefore, once everything was
returning back to normal, the company had to put in extra efforts
to recover the loss and there was nothing wrong in setting targets.
He submitted that, having a meeting before start of the day also
cannot be an act which would amount to instigating the deceased
to commit suicide. He submitted that, the applicant is 71 years of
age and based on these weak allegations, his custodial
interrogation is not necessary. He submitted that the co-accused
i.e. applicant’s son and daughter are already granted anticipatory
bail by this court vide order dated 21/01/2022.
9. Learned APP opposed this application. She relied on
the entry in the Note book of the deceased, wherein the deceased
had mentioned that the applicant was the main cause. Learned
APP submitted that, there is a reference to this entry in the order
granting anticipatory bail to the co-accused. She submitted that,
thus, according to the deceased himself the applicant was main the
cause because of whom the deceased has committed suicide.
10. Learned counsel for the intervenor submitted that the
F.I.R. mentions that the applicant had threatened the deceased
that, he would see to it that the deceased would not get any job if
he left the company. This is a serious allegation. Therefore, this
application should not be granted.
11. I have considered these submissions. So far as, order
dated 21/01/2022 granting bail to the co-accused i.e. applicant’s
son and daughter is concerned, their case was decided from their
perspective. The applicant has independent right to approach this
court. Therefore, I have independently assessed the material
against him to decide this issue; whether his custodial
interrogation is necessary in this offence. While it is true that the
deceased had written in the Note book that the applicant was the
main cause, the reason for this grudge is elaborated in the F.I.R.
The informant has mentioned that the deceased was given bigger
targets. He was asked to attend the standing meeting daily in the
morning at 9.30a.m. He was not given facility like driver for his
vehicle, he was not granted leave and his resignation was not
accepted. These are the basic allegations. At this stage, it is rather
difficult to observe that either of these acts would be covered
within the meaning of Section 107 r/w. S. 306 of IPC.
12. The F.I.R. itself shows that the deceased was taking
treatment for his stress management. He was disturbed and in the
disturbed state of mind he had committed suicide. So, there is
possibility that his commission of suicide was a result of his mental
state. Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because
of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its
business in the manner that was in the best interest of the
company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets
were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would
commit suicide. The only serious allegation in the F.I.R. is about
the applicant threatening the deceased about his prospects in
career. Effect of such treats will be a matter of trial based on the
evidence led before the court. Today, I am only deciding the
question whether the applicant’s custodial interrogation in this
background is necessary. The applicant is 71 years of age. It is
doubtful whether the offence U/s.306 r/w. S.107 of IPC is made
out. The main allegations are about the company setting big
targets, not granting leave and not accepting the resignation.
These acts would be in the normal course of business. The
deceased was earning Rs.1,35,000/-p.m. He was working with the
company since the year 2001. The company had not stopped his
salary, even during the period of lockdown, as submitted by
learned senior counsel. All these factors also need to be taken into
consideration. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has made
out a case for grant of anticipatory bail order in his favour. It is
made clear that these observations are restricted to passing of this
order and the trial court shall decide the trial on its own merits on
the basis of the evidence led before it.
13. Hence, the following order :
ORDER
(i) In the event of his arrest in connection with
C.R.No.913 of 2021 registered at Dadar Police
Station, the applicant is directed to be released
on bail on his furnishing P. R. bond in the sum of
Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
with one or two sureties in the like amount.
(ii) The Applicant shall attend the concerned Police
Station as and when called and shall cooperate
with the investigation.
(iii) With disposal of anticipatory bail application,
the Interim Application No. 332 of 2022 does
not survive and it is also disposed of accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Print Page
No comments:
Post a Comment