A Baramati sessions court has granted anticipatory bail to two women accused of abetting the suicide of a college professor, observing that there are no substantial grounds necessitating custodial interrogation at this stage of the investigation. Additional sessions judge B D Shelke on April 23 granted pre-arrest bail to widow of the deceased professor and her sister in connection with the crime registered at Baramati taluka police station.
The case pertains to the alleged abetment of suicide a professor at a college in Baramati, who was found hanging in his residence in Tandulwadi, on March 12. A suicide note, reportedly sent via WhatsApp to his younger brother shortly before his death, named his wife and her family members as responsible for driving him to suicide. Based on a complaint lodged by the deceased’s father on March 16, the police registered an FIR under sections 108 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, against four accused, the two women and her parents.
According to the prosecution, the deceased had been subjected to continuous mental harassment by his wife and her family over financial matters, especially a demand for a share in compensation amounting to ₹33 lakh received by his father following acquisition of his land.
According to the complainant, the accused repeatedly pressured the victim to secure half of the compensation amount and threatened to implicate him in false cases if he failed to comply.
The FIR also details instances of marital discord dating back to 2017, including disputes over living arrangements and allegations of physical and verbal abuse.
Later in 2019, the couple shifted to Baramati after the deceased secured employment as a professor. They have a seven-year-old son. The prosecution opposed the bail applications, arguing that the offence is serious and that custodial interrogation is necessary to ascertain the extent of the accused’s involvement. It also expressed apprehension that the accused might influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if granted relief. The informant appeared in person and submitted before the court that the suicide note explicitly names all the accused and reflects sustained mental cruelty that led to the victim’s death. He contended that granting bail would send out the wrong message, and weaken public confidence in the justice system.
However, the defence argued that there is no proximate or direct act immediately preceding the suicide that can establish abetment.
The counsel for the applicants submitted that the allegations largely referred to past incidents without demonstrating a clear link to the suicide. It was also argued that the widow of the deceased is the sole caregiver to the couple’s seven-year-old, mentally disabled son and that her arrest will adversely impact the child.
After hearing both sides, the court observed that while the suicide note refers to harassment, it does not specify the nature or immediacy of the alleged acts.
The court further noted that the other accused, including the sister-in-law, resided separately in Buldhana district and that no material indicating proximate acts leading to the suicide has been presented at this stage. “Considering the nature and gravity of the offence and the material placed on record, no substantial grounds are made out for custodial interrogation,” the court observed.
The court also recorded, “what sort of ill-treatment or harassment was there to the victim on the date of incident is not reflected in the documents.”
Granting relief to the two accused women, the court directed that in on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000 each, with sureties.
