Mumbai: A sessions court last week granted bail to a Delhi-based man arrested for allegedly abetting the suicide of an Air India pilot in November. In its detailed order allowing bail, the court said Srishti Tuli had not complained to her family or any authority about her relationship with Aditya Pandit, 27.
Tuli, who lived in a rented flat in Marol area, was found dead in the early hours of November 25. A day later police arrested Pandit. Tuli’s father had alleged that before she took the extreme step, the two had stayed together for few days. However, on the day of the incident, Pandit left for Delhi at around 1pm.
While granting bail, the court said: “The FIR points out three instances of strained relationship between applicant [Pandit] and deceased [Tuli]. However, the deceased had not complained about the act of the applicant either to her family members or to any other authority.”
The defence had contended: “Merely because there were some fights between them it would not mean that the applicant had any criminal intent. In order to attract the charge of abetment it is necessary to show that the deceased was left with no other option but to commit suicide. This was not so in the present case. The deceased was an educated lady. If she was unhappy in the relationship she could have always walked out of it or if she was being harassed by the accused she could have complained about it.”
Besides, Pandit in his bail plea had contended that he tried to save her life. “The applicant had made telephone calls to the deceased and found that the deceased was not picking up the phone. He himself went to the premises and since she was no opening the door, he called a key-maker and got the door opened... He also removed her to the hospital in order to save her life,” the plea claimed.
The prosecution, however, claimed that Tuli had died in mysterious circumstances. “The applicant was with the deceased prior to the occurrence. They were residing together. The applicant must be having another key. Therefore calling locksmith to break open the door is a suspicious circumstance.”
The court, however, refused to accept this and said the material investigation was over. Hence there was no need to keep Pandit in custody.
Need Help- Call Aasra | Aasra |
