A land-sale money dispute alone cannot establish suicide abetment at the anticipatory-bail stage.

The applicant filed his first anticipatory bail application under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, apprehending arrest in Crime No.267/2026 registered at Police Station Nandani Nagar, District Durg, for offences under Sections 108, 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The deceased, Sanjay Ojha, died by suicide after jumping into the Shivnath River on 04.08.2026. During the merg enquiry, the police allegedly recovered a suicide note naming the applicant and two co-accused persons, following which the offence of abetment of suicide and related offences was registered.

The prosecution and objector alleged that the deceased had entered into an agreement concerning the sale of land for approximately ₹70 lakhs and had received an advance from the applicant and co-accused. It was alleged that, when the sale deed was not executed and the deceased failed to return the money, the applicant and co-accused threatened and harassed him, demanded further money, and thereby drove him to commit suicide.

The applicant contended that the dispute was a civil dispute arising from failed land-sale transactions, that the suicide note contained no specific allegation against him, and that his handwriting on the note had not been established.

After hearing the parties and examining the case diary, the High Court considered the application on merits.

The Court applied Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which empowers the High Court to grant anticipatory bail to a person apprehending arrest.

The alleged offences were examined with reference to Sections 108, 308(5) and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Court applied the established principle that anticipatory bail depends on an assessment of the nature of the allegations, the material collected during investigation, the circumstances of the case, and the need for custodial interrogation, without undertaking a final determination of guilt.

It further treated the question whether the accused’s conduct legally amounted to abetment or instigation of suicide as a matter requiring evaluation at trial, particularly where the alleged suicide note had not yet been proved through handwriting examination.

The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations, including the deceased’s suicide note and the claim that the applicant had threatened and harassed him.

However, it found that the dispute principally arose from a money transaction connected with an unsuccessful land-sale arrangement.

The Court held that such a dispute, by itself, could not be treated as the sole cause of instigation to commit suicide, and that the question whether the applicant’s conduct amounted to abetment was a matter for trial.

The Court also considered it significant that, more than a month after the incident, the handwriting on the suicide note had still not been proved by a handwriting expert.

Without expressing any final opinion on the merits, these circumstances justified extending anticipatory-bail protection to the applicant.

It directed that, in the event of arrest, Zafar Rashid Khan be released on bail upon executing a personal bond of ₹50,000 with one surety for the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.

The relief was subject to conditions prohibiting the applicant from threatening or influencing witnesses, requiring him not to prejudice a fair and expeditious trial, mandating his appearance before the trial court on every date, requiring submission and verification of identity documents and photograph, and restraining him from committing a similar offence in future.