Ten years after actor Pratyusha Banerjee died by suicide, the Bombay high court on Wednesday discharged her then boyfriend, actor-producer Rahul Singh from the suicide abetment case.

Rahul Raj Singh and Pratyusha was seen during a birthday party of Pratyusha Banerjee. (HT)

Singh had filed a discharge application in the high court after the Dindoshi sessions court had rejected his discharge plea in August 2023, observing that she died by suicide apparently as she was depressed because of physical, emotional, financial harassment and exploitation by Singh. A single-judge bench of Justice Shivkumar Dige on Wednesday allowed Singh to be discharged from the case.

ALSO READ | Pratyusha suicide: Statement of Rahul’s ex-girlfriend recorded

ALSO READ | Pratyusha Banerjee's parents are penniless fighting her case, living in single-room house: 'Lost everything'

Singh said when he tried to stop her from giving money to her parents, it caused a rift in their relationship. He also claimed that she was disturbed because of her parents and not him. He alleged that Pratyusha’s parents were in the habit of spending their daughter’s money to fund their lavish lifestyle.

On the other hand, Banerjee’s mother alleged that Singh was a possessive boyfriend and assaulted her on several occasions and drained her financially by misusing her funds and did not allow her to talk to her own parents.

ALSO READ | Pratyusha Banerjee’s boyfriend Rahul Raj Singh: ‘She never dated Vikas Gupta’

Singh’s counsel, advocate Shreyansh Mithare, said the court took note of the last telephonic conversation between the couple on the day of the incident in which Singh was trying to console Banerjee, who was upset with her parents. “The last conversation clearly shows that he was trying to console her and repeatedly telling her that he loved her and was coming home. This was important to show that there was no intention on his part to abet her suicide”, Mithare said. He also questioned the registration of the FIR against Singh without even a suicide note and said “any evidence forcing the case to go forward to trial would be an abuse of process”.