Merabhai Budhabhai (Bodhabhai) Bharwad vs State Of Gujarat

Utkarsh Thakorbhai Desai, J

The applicant herein, who is apprehending arrest in connection with FIR No. 11206020250585 of 2025 registered with Kadi Police Station, Mehsana for the offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 108 & 54 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, as well as, Sections 40 and 40(d) of the Gujarat Money-Lenders Act, 2011, has preferred the present application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 praying for anticipatory bail.

The FIR came to be lodged by the father of the deceased Dharmesh Panchal, who, along with his wife and 9 years old son, had committed suicide, pursuant to the threats given by the applicant and other co-accused.

As mentioned in the FIR, Dharmesh Panchal - the son of the original complainant, Dharmesh’s wife Urmila and minor son Prakash had committed suicide, by jumping into Narmada Canal on 07.06.2025. Two mobile phones and two suicide notes were recovered from the car of the deceased. It was mentioned by the deceased in his suicide note that, he was unable to bear the harassment caused by the money-lenders and that, they had no other option but to end their lives, which they ultimately did. Phone call recordings were also found from the mobile phones of the deceased Dharmesh, which were in the nature of threats being given by the applicant and other co-accused. Though the deceased had paid the interest amounts to the applicant and other co-accused, they were demanding more amounts towards interest from him, and a shop which was in his wife’s name, was also taken away by way of an agreement to sell. The applicant herein was paid Rs.4,80,000/- by the deceased, however, he was demanding more money from him i.e. the deceased.

Heard learned advocate Mr. S.S. Trivedi on behalf of the applicant who has reiterated the averments of the application and has submitted that, there is no evidence as regards there being instigation from the applicant, which would have driven the deceased Dharmesh, his wife Urmila and his minor son Prakash to commit suicide. Also, there is no iota of evidence about any kind of harassment having been caused by the applicant to the deceased Dharmesh. Mr. Trivedi, learned advocate has relied upon the judgement rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2025) 4 SCC 801. Accordingly, learned advocate Mr. Trivedi has urged the court to allow the application submitting that, the applicant would co-operate with the Investigation Officer during the investigation.

Mr. Soaham Joshi, learned APP has strongly opposed this application submitting that, three precious lives have been lost for which, the applicant who has been named in the FIR along with other co-accused were clearly responsible. Hence, this application should be rejected. According to Mr. Joshi, the facts in the case of Mahendra Awase (supra) were different, hence, the ratio would not be applicable in the present case.

At the outset, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Awase (supra) was dealing with a case wherein, a suicide note was recovered which revealed that, the appellant therein was asking the deceased to repay the loan guaranteed by the deceased and advanced to one Ritesh Malakar. The Hon’ble Apex Court had observed that, “it could not be said that the appellant by of realising outstanding loans at the behest of his employer can be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide…. Even taken literally, it could not be said that the appellant intended to instigate the commission of suicide. It could certainly not be said that the appellant by his acts created circumstances which left the deceased with no other option except to commit suicide.”

Thus, Mahendra Awase (supra) was a case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court was dealing with a situation wherein, the accused in his professional capacity on behalf of one Shree Saakh Cooperative Society Limited, Khargone was demanding money towards the repayment of loan amount from the deceased, and not otherwise. In the present case, the deceased Dharmesh had borrowed money from the applicant and other co-accused who were private money-lenders, and had paid substantial amounts to each one of them towards interest. However, the applicant and other co-accused were persistently harassing him for payment of more amounts. In the said context, the judgement in the case of Mahendra Awase (supra) cannot be made applicable to the case on hand.

The involvement of the applicable is writ large on the face of the investigation papers. Whether there was an element of instigation and to what extent, would be matters of evidence at the time of trial, which cannot be decided at this juncture. This court has also perused the transcripts of the call details which were recovered from the mobile phones of the deceased Dharmesh, his suicide notes and notes of payments which he had made to the applicant and other co-accused, and also the details of the call recordings between the deceased Dharmesh and the applicant. Thus, prima facie, there is enough culpable evidence against the applicant, so as to establish his complicity in the crime.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, it does not deem fit to this court to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant. It is however clarified that, the observations made hereinabove are prima facie, and the trial court shall not be influenced by the same.

Application is accordingly rejected.