Husband Telling Wife “Do Whatever You Want” In Anger Is Not Abetment To Suicide: Bombay High Court Grants Him Bail
Curated by NEWS DESK
Editorial DeskMAHARASHTRA: The Bombay High Court has granted bail to a husband accused of abetting his wife's suicide, observing that words spoken in anger during a domestic dispute do not automatically amount to instigation to suicide.
Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that a husband not spending enough time with his wife or taking her outside due to work commitments may amount to marital discord, but such conduct alone cannot establish criminal cruelty.
The Court was hearing a bail application under Section 483 BNSS involving allegations under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) BNS.
The couple married in July 2025 and initially lived with the husband's family. According to the prosecution, the husband allegedly did not spend enough time with his wife, avoided taking her out or visiting relatives, and did not respond positively to her attempts to grow closer to him.
About a month before the incident, the couple shifted to a separate flat.
On the day of the incident, the couple allegedly had an argument. The wife reportedly threatened to end her life if her husband did not listen to her. In response, the husband allegedly told her to "do whatever she wants" and left the house to visit his brother.
The wife later spoke to her maternal uncle about alleged harassment by her in-laws. She subsequently died by suicide.
During the hearing, the Bombay High Court examined the prosecution statements and found that specific allegations of harassment were mainly against the husband's mother and sister. The couple had already started living separately from them.
Regarding the husband's alleged statement during the argument, the High Court observed:
“Words spoken in anger in a domestic quarrel, namely "do whatever you want", followed by the Applicant leaving his house after the quarrel prima facie do not amount to instigation or any intentional mens rea or conspiracy to push the victim to commit the incident in question,”
The Court explained that abetment of suicide under Section 108 BNS requires a direct and positive act showing intentional instigation, closely connected to the suicide.
It observed that words spoken during a heated marital argument cannot automatically establish criminal intent. The FIR did not disclose any specific positive or overt act by the husband amounting to instigation.
While examining the allegations of cruelty against the husband, the Court also considered his profession as a lecturer and his work responsibilities.
The High Court observed:
“Insofar as the aspect of cruelty alleged against the Applicant is concerned, it is seen that a spouse not giving time and not taking the spouse out are prima facie allegations of marital discord and considering the nature of work of the Applicant, who is a lecturer it is prima facie understandable that he may not have the time to do so,”
The Court further noted that there were no allegations of physical violence, abuse, use of force or demands for money or articles against the husband.
It distinguished ordinary matrimonial disputes from criminal cruelty, observing that serious criminal allegations must be supported by specific conduct and the necessary criminal intent.
Finding that custodial interrogation of the husband was unnecessary, the Bombay High Court granted him bail in the abetment of suicide case.
EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS
| Law / Section | What It Means | Application In This Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 108 BNS | Punishment for abetment of suicide. | Court found no prima facie direct instigation by the husband. |
| Section 85 BNS | Punishes cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a married woman. | Lack of time and outings was treated as marital discord, not sufficient by itself to establish cruelty. |
| Section 3(5) BNS | Provides joint criminal liability where an act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. | Invoked in the FIR along with the other offences. |
| Section 483 BNSS | Gives the High Court and Court of Session powers to grant bail. | Husband sought and obtained bail under this provision. |
CASE DETAILS
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Title | Abhijit Dilip Garad v. State of Maharashtra |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Jurisdiction | Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench | Justice Milind N. Jadhav |
| Neutral Citation | 2026:BHC-AS:45443 |
| Case Number | Bail Application No. 4141 of 2026 |
| CNR Number | HCBM010511422026 |
| Applicant | Abhijit Dilip Garad (Husband) |
| Respondent | State of Maharashtra |
| Applicant's Counsel | Advocate Nitin Gaware Patil |
| Decision | Husband granted bail in the original order dated November 3, 2026 |
| Subsequent Clarification | Court clarified that co-accused Anita Dilip Garad (mother) was protected by anticipatory bail dated October 23, 2026. |
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- Angry Words Not Abetment: Saying "Do Whatever You Want" during a marital quarrel does not automatically amount to instigation to suicide.
- Marital Discord Not Cruelty: A husband not giving enough time or taking his wife out is not automatically criminal cruelty.
- Men Cannot Be Punished Without Evidence: Abetment of suicide requires specific acts showing intentional instigation.
- Work Commitments Matter: A husband's professional responsibilities cannot automatically be treated as harassment.
- Bail Granted to Husband: The Bombay High Court found custodial interrogation unnecessary despite serious allegations.
Share Your Thoughts
Comments are moderated before publication.