'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case

The Bombay High Court has granted anticipatory bail to former Director of a company accused of abetting the suicide of an employee, observing that all the allegations seemed to be part of "normal course of business" and that a company was "entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company."Justice Sarang Kotwal, in a recent order, observed that the deceased, Nikhil Joshi, was taking treatment for stress management and was in a disturbed state of mind. "Though, there are allegations that he was disturbed because of stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in the manner that was in the best interest of the company. That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide," the court observed.The court was hearing an anticipatory bail application filed by one Dr. Surendra Manjrekar (71), former Director of Sunanda Specialty Coatings Pvt. Ltd. Manjrekar, along with his son and daughter who were also a part of the same company, were booked under section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by Mumbai's Dadar Police station last year. Nikhil Joshi had committed suicide by jumping from the office building on September 30, 2021, after which his widow Minal lodged a complaint.The allegations were that Joshi had joined the company way back in 2001 and had put in hard work which had impressed Manjrekar as he had benefited from Joshi's hard work. However, when Manjrekar's two children joined the company as Directors in 2011, the children were not happy with the prominence given to Joshi and were, therefore, humiliating him.The FIR alleged that recently the company had implemented unfair rules by which the seniors were expected to join a standing meeting at 9.30 am every day, and in that meeting the company used to give bigger targets. Joshi was often humiliated in the meetings."The deceased was working at a senior position and, therefore, he was disturbed because of such treatment. The company was not giving him basic facilities like a driver for his vehicle. The company was not giving him leave. The deceased had started suffering from weakness and other medical ailments," the FIR further alleged.It was also alleged that Joshi had mentioned all of this to Manjrekar, but he had ignored that and advised Joshi to leave the company. Joshi's wife then requested Manjrekar's wife to sanction his leave, but he was asked to approach Manjrekar, he, however, did not respond.When Joshi tried to give his leave application to Manjrekar again, Manjrekar asked him to wait in the company office and eventually did not come to the office that day. Joshi returned home frustrated that day, resulting in the entire family discussing the matter and a decision was made that Joshi would leave the job. Manjrekar, however, did not entertain him when he went to the office with a resignation letter the next day saying that he did not have time and that Joshi was free to do whatever he wanted to do. Manjrekar also allegedly told Joshi that he would see to it that Joshi would not get any other job. Next day Joshi jumped out of the office building and committed suicide.Before the court, senior Advocate Ashok Mundargi appearing for Manjrekar, argued that taking the allegations as they were, would not fall within the ambit of section 107 (willful misrepresentation to instigate something) r/w. Section 306 of IPC. He submitted that none of the acts attributed to the applicant would amount to abetment to commit suicide.He also submitted that, during the lockdown the company had suffered losses and, therefore, once everything was returning back to normal, the company had to put in extra efforts to recover the loss and there was nothing wrong in setting targets. He added that having a meeting before start of the day also cannot be an act which would amount to instigating the deceased to commit suicide. He submitted that the applicant was 71 years of age and based on the weak allegations, his custodial interrogation was not necessary. He added that Manjrekar's son and daughter were already granted anticipatory bail by the High Court on January 21, 2022.Additional Public Prosecutor AA Takalkar, for the State and Advocate Rajesh More for the complainant opposed the application citing an entry in Joshi's note book which mentioned Manjrekar as the main cause for the alleged harassment to Joshi.The court, however, granted anticipatory bail to the accused observing that the only serious allegation in the FIR was about Manjrekar threatening Joshi about his prospects in career. "Effect of such threats will be a matter of trial based on the evidence led before the court," the court observed."The company had not stopped his salary, even during the period of lockdown, as submitted by learned senior counsel. All these factors also need to be taken into consideration. Therefore, in my opinion, the applicant has made out a case for...

'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

'Employer Entitled To Carry On Business In Company's Best Interest': Bombay HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In Employee's Abetment To Suicide Case

Sharmeen Hakim

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers