Suicide of employee due to alleged work place stress: Bombay High Court grants anticipatory bail to company director

The Bombay High Court recently granted anticipatory bail to the director of a company who had been accused of abetting the suicide of one of his employees [Dr. Surendra Manjrekar v. State of Maharashtra with connected plea].The Court noted from the first information report that the deceased was taking treatment for his stress management, and was in a disturbed state of mind, when he died by suicide.Justice SV Kotwal opined that even if the allegations were that the deceased was disturbed because of the stress in the company, the company was entitled to carry its business in a manner that was in its best interest.“That by itself would not mean that the bigger targets were given and meeting was arranged, so that the deceased would commit suicide,” the order read..The FIR against the accused, Dr Surendra Manjrekar, was registered based on the complaint of the wife of the deceased. The wife stated that her husband worked in the company since 2001 and earned a salary of ₹1,35,000.She claimed that the company was benefiting from the deceased’s work, but when Manjrekar’s children joined the company, they started humiliating the deceased. Her husband then started suffering from weakness, other medical ailments and treatment for stress, she alleged.The deceased allegedly told his wife that when he submitted his resignation to the accused, he was threatened regarding the future of his career by Manjrekar, the Court was told.The next day, the deceased went into his office and jumped from the office window. After the deceased died by suicide, his wife found writings in his notebook which enlisted his grievances against the company and the applicant..The accused argued that during the lockdown the company had suffered loss. Therefore, the company was putting in extra efforts to recover the loss and there was nothing wrong in setting targets.He also contended that he was 71 years of age and his custodial interrogation was not necessary..The Court deduced that the only serious allegation in the FIR was about the applicant threatening the deceased about his prospects in career, however, the effect of such threats was a matter of trial.On a prima facie perusal of the basic allegations penned down by the deceased, the Court opined that it would be difficult to hold that such acts would be covered within the ambit of abetment as defined under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code..[Read Order]