Sudhir More suicide case: Court denies pre-arrest bail to booked lawyer

A sessions court in Mumbai denies anticipatory bail to advocate Nilima Chavan, who is accused of abetting the suicide of a Shiv Sena leader.

MUMBAI: The sessions court on Wednesday denied anticipatory bail to Nilima Chavan, an advocate accused of abetting the suicide of Shiv Sena (UBT) leader and former corporator Sudhir Sayaji More.

HT Image

The court denied her pre-arrest bail after the police claimed that she had blackmailed and mentally harassed More over their relationship.

Sixty-two-year-old More, was found dead on railway tracks between Ghatkopar and Vidyavihar railway stations in the early hours of September 1. He was seen jumping in front of a local train, heading towards Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus.

More’s son had accused Chavan of harassing and blackmailing More because of which he died by suicide. A case under section 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Chavan at Kurla Government Railway Police (GRP) station.

Fearing arrest, Chavan had on Monday moved the sessions court for anticipatory bail. In her plea filed through advocate Subir Sarkar, she claimed that she had been falsely implicated in the case.

Chavan claimed that there was no specific incident or reason mentioned to justify the charge of abetment to suicide leveled against her.

Sarkar contended that the complainant did not have personal knowledge of anything related to the case. Besides he said, two adults were in a relationship and issues that crop out of it will not amount to abetment to suicide. More was well within his rights to leave the relationship, Sarkar argued.

Police opposed the plea, saying the accused had threatened to end her life if More didn’t continue the relationship with her or stopped talking to the woman and was blackmailing him.

The police said that on the day of the incident, Chavan had called the More 56 times, which were recorded on his phone, and had also made equal number of audio and video calls on WhatsApp and left several messages. The police claimed that More had been requesting the accused to stop harassing him, but she did not budge.

Public prosecutor Iqbal Solkar, appearing for police, submitted that there had been heated arguments between the two and there were issues over their relationship. Solkar contended that More was suffering mentally due to the accused.

To ascertain what happened in the said conversation, the prosecution said the accused’s phone has to be seized and for voice verification custody of the accused is required, he added.

Advocate Anil Jadhav, appearing for complainant (More’s son), said that the applicant (Chavan) was interested in contesting civic elections and was pressuring More to arrange a ticket for her, and it was one of the reasons for the dispute between the two. The court, after hearing the parties, denied her pre-arrest bail.