Karnataka High Court Protects Ola CEO Bhavish Aggarwal from Police Harassment in Abetment to Suicide Case

Background of the Case

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Bengaluru Police not to harass Ola Electric CEO Bhavish Aggarwal and other company officials in connection with a case registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for abetment to suicide.

The order came in response to a petition filed by Aggarwal, Ola Electric, and Subrat Kumar Dash, head of Vehicle Homologation, challenging the FIR filed against them after the death of a 38-year-old Ola Electric engineer, who allegedly died by suicide on September 28, 2025.

The High Court bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz, in an order passed on October 17, restrained the police from taking coercive action or harassing the petitioners “under the guise of investigation.”


Facts of the Case

The deceased, who worked as a Homologation Engineer at Ola Electric since 2022, allegedly consumed poison at his Bengaluru residence. After his death, his family discovered a 28-page handwritten note accusing senior company officials, including Aggarwal and Dash, of mental harassment and withholding salary and dues.

Following this, the Subramanyapura Police Station registered an FIR on October 6, invoking:

  • Section 108 (Abetment of Suicide) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and

  • Section 3(5) for common intention.

The deceased’s brother also claimed that ₹17.46 lakh was transferred to the deceased’s bank account two days after his death, allegedly by Ola Electric, which raised suspicion.

The complaint alleged inconsistent explanations by company representatives regarding this transaction, further strengthening the family’s suspicion of workplace exploitation and negligence.


High Court’s Intervention

Hearing the plea filed on October 14, the High Court observed that while the police must continue investigating, they must not harass the accused in the process.

“The police who are investigating into the case... registered at Subramanyapura Police Station, Bengaluru City, shall not harass the petitioners in the guise of investigation,”
the court stated.

The court also issued notices to the police and to the deceased’s brother, seeking their response to the company’s plea for quashing the FIR.


Company’s Response

Ola Electric, in its statement, expressed grief over the death of its employee but clarified that:

  • The deceased never raised any complaints or grievances regarding harassment during his tenure.

  • His position did not involve direct communication with the company’s top management, including Bhavish Aggarwal.

  • The company facilitated immediate settlement of dues to the family as a gesture of support.

“We are deeply saddened by the unfortunate demise of our colleague… During his tenure, he never raised any complaint or grievance regarding harassment,” the spokesperson said.
“Ola Electric is fully cooperating with authorities and remains committed to maintaining a respectful and safe workplace.”


Legal Analysis: Statutory and Constitutional Framework

Relevant Provisions under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023

  1. Section 108 – Abetment of Suicide

    • States that any person who abets the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment up to 10 years and a fine.

    • To establish guilt, the prosecution must prove:

      • The existence of mens rea (intent) to instigate suicide.

      • A direct nexus between the acts or omissions of the accused and the suicide.

  2. Section 3(5) – Common Intention

    • Provides that when two or more persons act with a shared intention to commit an offence, each is equally liable for the act as if done individually.


Constitutional Safeguards

  1. Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

    • Extends protection against arbitrary investigation or harassment, ensuring that the process of law does not infringe upon an individual’s dignity or liberty.

  2. Article 14 – Equality Before Law

    • Guarantees impartial treatment during criminal proceedings, protecting individuals from selective or politically motivated action.

  3. Article 19(1)(g) – Freedom of Profession and Occupation

    • Protects business leaders and professionals from undue state interference unless restricted by reasonable legal justification.


Judicial Precedents

  1. Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020)

    • The Supreme Court held that to invoke Section 306 IPC (now Section 108 BNS), there must be direct and proximate incitement to commit suicide. Mere workplace pressure or administrative action is insufficient.

  2. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010)

    • The Court ruled that harassment at work without clear evidence of deliberate instigation does not constitute abetment under law.

  3. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017)

    • It was clarified that causation and intention are essential — if the deceased was hypersensitive to ordinary circumstances, the accused cannot be held liable for abetment.


The Larger Question: Mental Health and Corporate Accountability

The case brings to light the growing tension between high-performance work environments and employee well-being in India’s technology and manufacturing sectors.
While the judiciary is cautious about criminalizing every instance of workplace stress, this case underscores the urgent need for mental health frameworks and preventive redressal mechanisms in corporations.

Corporate entities must ensure:

  • Periodic mental wellness audits,

  • Anonymous grievance reporting, and

  • Compliance with labour welfare obligations under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.


Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s order is a reminder that while investigations are vital for justice, they must not cross into harassment or coercion.

As India modernizes its legal system under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cases like this highlight the balance courts must strike between protecting due process and addressing genuine workplace exploitation.

Ultimately, justice must not only be done — it must be seen to uphold fairness, compassion, and the constitutional dignity of every stakeholder.



Comments

Popular posts

Father of RG Kar Victim Loses Faith in Legal System Amid Allegations of CBI Inconsistencies

Bill Gates Applauds India's 'Namo Drone Didi' Program: A Game-Changer in Rural Empowerment and Agri-Tech

Flight Operations Disrupted Amid India-Pakistan Tensions: Air India and IndiGo Cancel Multiple Flights on May 13, 2025

Your Complete Online Guide to Land Records and Services in Bihar

District Judges' Appointment and Service: Constitutional Framework and Contemporary Imperatives

Evolution of Constitution under Article 14 to 18

Constitutional Provisions Governing Union Territories and Delhi: A Comprehensive Analysis of Articles 239 to 240

Equality Before Law

Supreme Court Advocates for Childcare and Feeding Rooms in Public Spaces

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Former Bank Manager Accused of Defrauding Woman of ₹13 Crores