Can the words “Do Whatever You Want”, spoken during a domestic argument, amount to abetment of suicide? The Bombay High Court recently examined this question while granting bail to a 37-year-old engineering college lecturer accused of abetting his wife's suicide. Justice Milind N. Jadhav observed that words spoken in anger during a domestic quarrel, without a direct and intentional act of instigation, do not prima facie establish abetment of suicide.
Background
The case arose from an FIR registered at Chandannagar Police Station, Pune City, under Sections 108, 85 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The applicant, Abhijit Dilip Garad, worked as a lecturer at D.Y. Patil Engineering College, Pune. His wife died by suicide on September 13, 2026, following which her brother, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, lodged the FIR.
According to the prosecution, the couple married on July 13, 2025, and initially lived with the applicant's family. They shifted to a separate flat approximately one month before the incident.
The allegations against the applicant included not spending sufficient time with his wife and avoiding taking her outside or visiting relatives. On the day of the incident, the couple reportedly had a quarrel. When his wife expressed an intention to commit suicide, the applicant allegedly responded, “Do Whatever You Want”, before leaving the house.
After examining the FIR and witness statements, the High Court noted that specific allegations of harassment were primarily attributed to the applicant's mother and sister-in-law. The couple had already shifted away from the joint family before the incident.
The 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 further explained that abetment of suicide requires a direct, intentional and positive act of instigation, having a connection with the incident. A mere reaction during an argument cannot automatically satisfy this requirement.
Regarding the allegations of cruelty, the Court observed that not giving sufficient time to a spouse or not taking them outside prima facie reflected marital discord. It also noted the absence of allegations of force, violence, abuse or demands for money and articles by the applicant.
The Court additionally considered that the applicant had no criminal antecedents and that no recovery was pending from him.
Finding that custodial interrogation was not necessary, the High Court allowed the bail application and directed the applicant's release on a personal recognizance bond of Rs. 15,000 with one or two sureties of the like amount.
The applicant was also directed to cooperate with the investigation and trial, report to the investigating officer once every month and not leave Maharashtra without prior permission of the Trial Court.
Case Details:
Case Title: Abhijit Dilip Garad v. The State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Bail Application No. 4141 of 2026
Judge: Justice Milind N. Jadhav
Decision Date: November 3, 2026
