The Gujarat High Court refused to grant pre-arrest protection to an accused against whom the deceased had left a suicide note and a dying declaration specifically attributing responsibility for his death.
Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker observed that the allegations extended far beyond a mere dispute over repayment of money. According to the prosecution material, the accused allegedly subjected the deceased to sustained harassment and threatened that, if the loan remained unpaid, his kidney would be sold and his wife would be forced into prostitution. The Court held that such allegations disclosed a grave prima facie case requiring an unhindered investigation.
Background
Facts of the Case
The anticipatory bail application arose from an FIR registered at Sardarnagar Police Station, Ahmedabad City, alleging offences under:
- Section 108 BNS (abetment of suicide),
- Section 351(2) BNS,
- Section 54 BNS, and
- Sections 33 and 40 of the Gujarat Money Lenders Act.
The prosecution alleged that the deceased committed suicide after continuous harassment by the accused in connection with recovery of an alleged loan. Before taking the extreme step, the deceased allegedly left behind:
- a suicide note naming the accused; and
- a statement before the police (treated by the Court as a dying declaration) identifying those responsible for driving him to suicide.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant contended that:
- the FIR was lodged after four days, casting doubt on its credibility;
- the allegations merely related to repayment of a loan;
- he was not present when the deceased committed suicide;
- there was no direct role attributed to him;
- mere recovery of money cannot amount to abetment of suicide;
- he was willing to cooperate with the investigation; and
- the deceased was burdened with multiple financial liabilities, making it impossible to attribute the suicide solely to the applicant.
State’s Arguments
The State opposed anticipatory bail by submitting that:
- the suicide note specifically named the applicant;
- the deceased had alleged continuous mental harassment;
- the accused threatened to recover money by selling the deceased’s kidney;
- the accused further threatened to force the deceased’s wife into prostitution if repayment was not made;
- online transactions corroborated payment of interest by the deceased; and
- the deceased had also named the applicant in his statement before the police.
Court’s Analysis
Suicide Note Disclosed Specific Allegations
The High Court noted that the prosecution case rested upon detailed allegations contained in the suicide note.
The Court observed that the allegations were not vague or omnibus. Rather, they specifically accused the applicant of subjecting the deceased to persistent harassment, intimidation and coercion, ultimately compelling him to commit suicide.
Threats Went Beyond Ordinary Loan Recovery
The Court emphasised that the allegations were not confined to demands for repayment of money.
According to the suicide note, the accused allegedly threatened that:
- the deceased’s kidney would be sold if he failed to repay the loan; and
- his wife would be forced into prostitution and sent to other men.
The Court held that such allegations, if true, directly assaulted the dignity of the deceased and his family and could reasonably push an ordinary person into severe psychological distress.
Need for Custodial Investigation
The Court observed that the investigation was still at a crucial stage and required examination of:
- the financial transactions between the parties;
- electronic communications;
- the sequence of events preceding the suicide; and
- the overall pattern of alleged harassment.
Accordingly, custodial interrogation could not be ruled out.
Call Records Supported Prima Facie Allegations
An important factor considered by the Court was the investigation into mobile phone records.
The Court noted that:
- one accused had allegedly called the deceased 33 times, including 15 calls in the last four months;
- the deceased’s wife was also contacted on multiple occasions; and
- these call records prima facie supported the allegations regarding threats made to the deceased and his wife.
Threats to Wife’s Dignity Were Exceptionally Serious
The Court made significant observations regarding the nature of the alleged threats.
It held that threatening to force a person’s wife into prostitution was not a routine recovery tactic but a direct attack on:
- personal dignity,
- family honour,
- emotional security, and
- psychological stability.
According to the Court, such intimidation was capable of creating overwhelming fear, humiliation and hopelessness in an ordinary individual. Whether these allegations would ultimately be proved was a matter for trial, but at the anticipatory bail stage they strongly militated against grant of relief.
Final Decision
The Gujarat High Court held that:
- the suicide note disclosed a strong prima facie case;
- the allegations required a free and unhindered investigation;
- no exceptional circumstances existed for granting anticipatory bail; and
- custodial interrogation was necessary.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed both anticipatory bail applications while clarifying that the observations were only tentative and would not influence the trial.
Conclusion
The Gujarat High Court’s decision underscores that allegations of sustained harassment accompanied by threats attacking the dignity and honour of a person’s family cannot be equated with an ordinary loan recovery dispute. While refraining from expressing any final opinion on the merits, the Court held that the suicide note, the deceased’s statement, and the surrounding investigation material disclosed a sufficiently grave prima facie case to warrant custodial investigation. Consequently, it declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail, leaving all questions of guilt to be determined during trial.
Case Details:
Shirishbhai Ashokbhai Garange versus State of Gujarat| Criminal Misc. Application (For anticipatory Bail 12670/2026
Date of Judgment: 08. July. 2026
Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker
Click HERE for full Judgment.
Lawcutor 